Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Biofilm and penile prosthesis infections in the era of coated implants: 2021 update

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 34, pages 411–415 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

William Costerton, the pioneer of bacterial biofilm research and Wilson published a review of this subject in 2012. Recent events and false claims have prompted an update for urologists regarding the science of penile implant biofilm. The recent biofilm literature has been investigated and new conclusions regarding penile implant biofilm physiology are clarified in this review. The timeline of biofilm formation is as follows. The wound is contaminated upon incision, and the inoculum of bacteria ceases with incision closure. Almost immediately planktonic bacteria attach to the implant and secrete biofilm which alters the host’s ability to eradicate the bacteria. Infection retardant coatings impair clinical infection by common skin organisms including coagulase negative staphylococci, the most frequent offenders. In the modern era of availability of infection retardant coated implants, the increasingly rare penile implant infections are now usually caused by more virulent bugs. Antibiotic elution from the surface of the implant is a tiny dose and only truly helpful in the first 24 h. AMS and Coloplast infection retardant coatings reduce infection equally and contemporary primary implant infections are far lower in experienced implant surgeons’ practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Polyurethane stained by adsorption of conditioning layer.
Fig. 2: Visible biofilm on prosthetic components.

References

  1. Wilson SK, Costerton JW. Biofilm and penile prosthesis infections in the era of the coated implants: a review. J Sex Med. 2012;9:44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Costerton JW, Stewart DS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infection. Science 1999;284:318–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yafi FA, Furr J, El-Khatib FM, van Renterghem K, Venturino L, Andrianne R et al. Prospective analysis of cultures from the Furlow insertion tool: a possible etiology for penile prosthesis infections. Int J Impot Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0256-2. [Epub ahead of print].

  4. Darouiche RO. Treatment of infections associated with surgical implants. N. Engl J Med. 2004;350:1422–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jaffer IH, Weitz JI. The blood compatibility challenge. Part 1: blood contacting medical devices: the scope of the problem. Acta Biomater. 2019;94:2–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Aricola CR, Alvi FI, An YH, Campoccia D, Montanaro L. Implant infections, adhesion, biofilm formation and immune evasion. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:397–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Selders GS, Fetz AE, Radic MZ, Bowlin GL. An overview of the role of neutrophils in innate immunity, inflammation and host-biomaterial integration. Regen Biomater. 2017;4:55–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. McConoughey SJ, Howlin R, Granger JF, Manring MM, Calhoun JH, Shirtliff M, et al. Biofilms in periprosthetic orthopedic infections. Future Microbiol. 2014;9:987–1007.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhao B, van der Mei HC, Subbiahdoss G, de Vries J, Rustema-Abbing M, Kuijer R, et al. Soft tissue integration versus early biofilm formation on different dental implant materials. Dent Mater. 2014;30:716–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Vickery K, Hu H, Jacombs AS, Bradshaw DA, Deva AK. A review of bacterial biofilms and their role in device-associated infection. Healthc Infect. 2013;18:61–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kostakioti M, Hadijifrangiskou M, Hultgren SJ. Bacterial biofilms: development dispersal and therapeutic strategies in the dawn of the post antibiotic era. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2013;3:a010306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Silverstein AD, Henry GD, Evans B, Pasmore M, Simmons CJ, Donatucci CF. Biofilm formation on clinically non-infected penile prostheses. J Urol. 2006;176:1008–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Flemming HC, Wingender J, Szewzyk U, Steinberg P, Rice SA, Khjelleberg S. Biofilms and emergent form of bacterial life. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016;14:563–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jefferson KK. What drives bacteria to produce a biofilm? FEMS Microbio Lett. 2004;236:163–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Aricola CR, Campossia D, Montanaro L. Implant infections: adhesion biofilm formation and immune evasion. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:397–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR, Carson CC, Silverstein A, Cleves MA, et al. Penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery: multicenter study. J Urol. 2004;172:153–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Eid JF, Wilson SK, Cleves M, Salem EA. Coated implants and the “no touch” surgical technique decreases risk of infection of inflatable penile prosthesis implantation to 0.46%. Urology. 2012;79:1310–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wilson SK, Zumbe J, Henry GD, Salem EA, Cleves MA. Infection reduction using antibiotic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 2007;70:337–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Citci S, Nemut T, Culha MM, Yilmaz H, Ustuner M, Yavuz Y, et al. Non-infected penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery; comparison between antibiotic coated and non-coated devices. Int Braz J Urol. 2016;42:1183–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mulcahy JJ, Kohler TS, Wen L, Wilson SK. Penile implant infection prevention part II: device coatings have changed the game. Int J Imp Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0338-1. [Epub ahead of print].

  21. Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Harsch MR. Long-term infection outcomes after original antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis implants: up to 7.7 years of follow-up. J Urol. 2011;185:614–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yuan Y, Hays MP, Hardwidge PR, Kim J. Surface characteristics influencing bacterial adhesion to polymeric substrates. RSC Adv. 2017;7:14254–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wilson SK, Salem EA, Costerton W. Anti-infection dip suggestions for the Coloplast Titan inflatable penile prosthesis in the era of the infection retardant coated implant. J Sex Med. 2011;8:2647–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Serefoglu EC, Mandava SH, Gokce A, Chouhan JD, Wilson SK, Hellstrom WJG. Long-term revision rate due to infection in hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prostheses: 11 year follow up. J Sex Med. 2012;8:2182–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mandava SH, Serefoglu EC, Freier MT, Wilson SK, Hellstrom WJG. Infection retardant coated inflatable penile prostheses decrease the incidence of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2012;188:1855–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilson SK, Delk JR. Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. J Urol. 1995;153:659–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kava BR, Kanagarajah P, Ayyathurai R. Contemporary revision penile prosthesis surgery is not associated with a high risk of implant colonization or infection: a single surgeon series. J Sex Med. 2011;8:1540–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jani K, Smith C, Delk JR, Carson CC, Donatucci CF, Cleves MA, et al. Infection retardant coatings impact bacterial presence in penile prosthesis surgery: a multicenter study. Urology. 2018;119:104–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Urology Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA

    Steven K. Wilson

  2. Institute for Urologic Excellence, La Quinta, CA, USA

    Martin S. Gross

Authors
  1. Steven K. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin S. Gross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin S. Gross.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

SKW is consultant for AMT, Coloplast, International Medical Devices and Uramix. Lecturer for AMS. MSG is consultant for Coloplast.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilson, S.K., Gross, M.S. Biofilm and penile prosthesis infections in the era of coated implants: 2021 update. Int J Impot Res 34, 411–415 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00423-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00423-w

Search

Advanced search

Quick links