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.

  • Article
  • Published:

A multicenter investigation examining timing of penile prosthesis infection management and responsible organisms

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 36, pages 214–217 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the timing of penile prosthesis infection management by different responsible organisms. A retrospective cohort study was performed of patients who underwent penile prosthesis salvage or explant procedures due to a suspected infection between 2001 and 2018. The cohort consisted of 216 patients from 33 different facilities and six countries. The most common primary organisms responsible for device infections included, Gram-positives (31.5%), no growth cultures (30.6%), Gram-negatives (22.2%), fungal (11.6%), and anaerobic organisms (4.2%). Overall, median time to infection was 1.8 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.0–3.0) months for all patients. Median time to infection management was similar between responsible organisms: 1.0 (IQR: 1.0–2.3) months for Gram-negatives and 2 months for Gram-positives (IQR: 1.0–1.4), fungal (IQR: 1.0–5.0), anaerobes (IQR: 1.0–2.5), and no growth cultures (IQR: 1.0–3.0, p = 0.56). Median time to infection management was significantly shorter among patients who received aminoglycoside/vancomycin prophylaxis (1.5 months, IQR: 1.0–2.5, p < 0.01) compared to other antibiotic groups. Median time to infection management was significantly longer for patients managed with a three-piece inflatable implant salvage procedure (2.8 months, IQR: 1.0–5.0, p = 0.02) compared to other salvage procedures. Conventional wisdom surrounding early versus late penile prosthesis infections should largely be abandoned. More than half of penile prosthesis infections are surgically managed within 2 months of initial device placement.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Fig. 1: Distribution of organisms responsible for penile prosthesis infections.
Fig. 2: Time to infection management by responsible organism group.
Fig. 3: Time to infection management by pre-operative antibiotic regimen.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Swanton AR, Munarriz RM, Gross MS. Updates in penile prosthesis infections. Asian J Androl. 2020;22:28–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Lakin MM. Penile prosthesis infection. Int J Impot Res. 2001;13:326–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gon LM, de Campos CCC, Voris BRI, Passeri LA, Fregonesi A, Riccetto CLZ. A systematic review of penile prosthesis infection and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus role. BMC Urol. 2021;21:35 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00730-2. 2021/03/10

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Rezaee ME, Butaney M, Thirumavalavan N, Gross MS, Munarriz RM. Advances in infection prevention strategies for penile prosthesis surgery. Curr Sex Health Rep. 2019;11:399–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gross MS, Phillips EA, Carrasquillo RJ, Thornton A, Greenfield JM, Levine LA, et al. Multicenter investigation of the micro-organisms involved in penile prosthesis infection: an analysis of the efficacy of the AUA and EAU guidelines for penile prosthesis prophylaxis. J Sex Med. 2017;14:455–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.01.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rezaee ME, Towe M, Osman MM, Huynh LM, El-Khatib FM, Andrianne R, et al. A multicenter investigation examining american urological association recommended antibiotic prophylaxis vs nonstandard prophylaxis in preventing device infections in penile prosthesis surgery in diabetic patients. J Urol. 2020;204:969–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000001158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fishman IJ, Scott FB, Selim AM. Rescue procedure: an alternative to complete removal for treatment of infected penile prosthesis. J Urol. 1987;137:202A–202A. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)75546-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Geipel U. Pathogenic organisms in hip joint infections. Int J Med Sci. 2009;6:234–40. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.6.234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Herati AS, Lo EM. Penile prosthesis biofilm formation and emerging therapies against them. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7:960–7. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2018.09.05

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Swanton AR, Gross MS, Munarriz RM, Mulcahy JJ. Penile prosthesis salvage: a historical look at the Mulcahy technique and a review of the latest literature. Int J Impot Res. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00515-7

  11. World Medical Assoc. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310:2191–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tande AJ, Patel R. Prosthetic joint infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2014;27:302–45. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00111-13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Dawn LE, Henry GD, Tan GK, Wilson SK. Biofilm and infectious agents present at the time of penile prosthesis revision surgery: times are a changing. Sex Med Rev. 2017;5:236–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chung PH, Leong JY, Phillips CD, Henry GD. Microorganism profiles of penile prosthesis removed for infection, erosion, and mechanical malfunction based on next-generation sequencing. J Sex Med. 2022;19:356–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.11.014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tatem A, Kovac JR. Post-operative antibiotics following placement of a penile prosthesis. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6 Suppl 5:S774–S775. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.11.14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the following centers for contributing data to this project, including Johns Hopkins Hospital, Boston Medical Center, University of Buenos Aires, Rush University Medical Center, Urology Associates of North Texas, Hackensack University Medical Center, University of Texas McGovern Medical School, Mayo Clinic, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, University Hospital of Liege, University College Hospital, Institute Medico Rosello, Nova Southeastern University, Perito Urology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Advanced Urological Care, Regional Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Albert Einstein College, Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, NYU Lagone Medical Center, Yale School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Hahnemann University Hospital, University of Utah Hospital, Sewum Prosthetic Urology Center of Excellence, SIU School of Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina do ABC/Instituto H. Ellis, and USF Morsani College of Medicine. This project did not receive funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medicine, 600 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    Michael E. Rezaee

  2. Department of Urology, Boston University Medical Center, 725 Albany St, 3rd Floor, Suite B, Boston, MA, 02118, USA

    Amanda R. Swanton & Ricardo M. Munarriz

  3. Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA

    Martin S. Gross

Authors
  1. Michael E. Rezaee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda R. Swanton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin S. Gross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ricardo M. Munarriz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MR—Contributed equally to study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and manuscript development. AS—Contributed equally to study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and manuscript development. MG—Contributed equally to study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and manuscript development. RM—Contributed equally to study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and manuscript development.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael E. Rezaee.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

MG and RM are consultants for Coloplast.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rezaee, M.E., Swanton, A.R., Gross, M.S. et al. A multicenter investigation examining timing of penile prosthesis infection management and responsible organisms. Int J Impot Res 36, 214–217 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00659-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00659-0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links