AUA-recommended Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Primary Penile Implantation Results in a Higher, Not Lower, Risk for Postoperative Infection: A Multicenter Analysis

Purpose: Our aim was to determine if the AUA-recommended prophylaxis (vancomycin + gentamicin alone) for primary inflatable penile prosthesis surgery is associated with a higher infection risk than nonstandard regimens. Materials and Methods: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of patients undergoing primary inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. Patients were divided into those receiving vancomycin + gentamicin alone and those receiving any other regimen. A Cox proportional-hazards model was constructed adjusted for major predictors. A subgroup analysis to identify the appropriate dosage of gentamicin was also performed. Results: A total of 4,161 patients underwent primary inflatable penile prosthesis placement (2,411 received vancomycin + gentamicin alone and 1,750 received other regimens). The infection rate was similar between groups, 1% vs 1.2% for standard vs nonstandard prophylaxis. In the multivariable analysis, vancomycin + gentamicin (HR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.4 to 5.4, P = .004) and diabetes (HR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.4, P = .04) were significantly associated with a higher risk of infection. Antifungals (HR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.19, P < .001) were associated with lower risk of infection. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rate between weight-based gentamicin compared to 80 mg gentamicin (HR: 2.9, 95% CI: 0.83 to 10, P = .1). Conclusions: Vancomycin + gentamicin alone for antibiotic prophylaxis for primary inflatable penile prosthesis surgery is associated with a higher infection risk than nonstandard antibiotic regimens while antifungal use is associated with lower infection risk. A critical review of the recommended antimicrobial prophylactic regimens is needed. Prospective research is needed to further elucidate best practices in inflatable penile prosthesis antimicrobial prophylaxis.

[1]  R. Kullar,et al.  Next-Generation Sequencing Supports Targeted Antibiotic Treatment for Culture Negative Orthopedic Infections , 2022, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[2]  F. Yafi,et al.  Immediate salvage with inflatable penile prosthesis in an infected field is associated with a high success rate , 2022, International Journal of Impotence Research.

[3]  F. Forsberg,et al.  A scoping review of penile implant biofilms—what do we know and what remains unknown? , 2021, Translational Andrology and Urology.

[4]  James F McDonald,et al.  An Enhanced Understanding of Culture-Negative Periprosthetic Joint Infection with Next-Generation Sequencing , 2019, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  C. Anderson,et al.  Guideline-Discordant Preoperative Gentamicin Dosing and the Risk of Gentamicin Associated Nephrotoxicity in Urologic Surgery. , 2021, Urology.

[6]  L. Kavoussi,et al.  Best Practice Statement on Urologic Procedures and Antimicrobial Prophylaxis. , 2020, The Journal of urology.

[7]  M. Bolat,et al.  Comparison of Long-Term Results and Couples' Satisfaction with Penile Implant Types and Brands: Lessons Learned From 883 Patients With Erectile Dysfunction Who Underwent Penile Prosthesis Implantation. , 2019, The journal of sexual medicine.

[8]  Wei Gu,et al.  Clinical Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing for Pathogen Detection. , 2019, Annual Review of Pathology.

[9]  S. Opal,et al.  Antibiotic Stewardship: Strategies to Minimize Antibiotic Resistance While Maximizing Antibiotic Effectiveness. , 2018, The Medical clinics of North America.

[10]  G. Nehrenz,et al.  Experience With Prophylactic Gentamicin During Penile Prosthesis Surgery: A Retrospective Comparison of Two Different Doses. , 2017, The journal of sexual medicine.

[11]  Elizabeth A. Phillips,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. , 2017, The journal of sexual medicine.

[12]  A. Bella,et al.  Penile Prosthesis Surgery: Current Recommendations From the International Consultation on Sexual Medicine. , 2016, The journal of sexual medicine.

[13]  M. Colaco,et al.  Penile prostheses and the litigious patient: a legal database review. , 2014, The journal of sexual medicine.

[14]  G. Ehrlich,et al.  Culture-Negative Infections in Orthopedic Surgery , 2012 .

[15]  C. Carson,et al.  Long-term infection outcomes after original antibiotic impregnated inflatable penile prosthesis implants: up to 7.7 years of followup. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[16]  A. Sahud,et al.  Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. , 2009, Urology.

[17]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. , 2007, Preventive medicine.

[18]  Brian R. Evans,et al.  Biofilm formation on clinically noninfected penile prostheses. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[19]  M. Cleves,et al.  Penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery: a multicenter study. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[20]  C. Dhabuwala,et al.  Comparison of satisfaction rates and erectile function in patients treated with sildenafil, intracavernous prostaglandin E1 and penile implant surgery for erectile dysfunction in urology practice. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[21]  S. Wilson,et al.  Inflatable penile implant infection: predisposing factors and treatment suggestions. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[22]  K. Matsumoto,et al.  Histopathological characteristics of explanted human prosthetic arterial grafts: implications for the prevention and management of graft infection. , 1995, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.