Introduction: Aim of this study is to investigate bacterial growth on non-infected devices and compare antibiotic-coated and non-coated implants.

Materials And Methods: The charts of 71 patients who underwent revision surgeries for penile prosthesis between 1995 and 2013 were reviewed. Of those, 31 devices were antibiotic-coated prostheses, while 40 of the implants were non-coated. Swab cultures were routinely obtained from corporal, pump or reservoir site during the operation. If a bacterial biofilm was determined on the prosthesis, it was also cultured.

Results: A total of 5 different organisms were cultured from 18 patients. Of them, 4 devices were antibiotic-coated and the other 14 were non-coated devices. Staphylococcus epidermidis was the most common organism, while Staphylococcus hominis, beta hemolitic streptococcus, Escherichia coli and Proteus mirabilis were also cultured. All patients who had positive cultures were treated with appropriate antibiotics for four weeks postoperatively. Median follow-up time was 41 months, ranging between 8 and 82 months. One prosthesis (non-coated) became clinically infected in the follow-up period with a totally different organism. Culture positivity rates of antibiotic-coated and non-coated devices were 13% and 35% respectively and the result was significant (p=0.00254).

Conclusions: Positive bacterial cultures are present on non-infected penile prostheses at revision surgeries in some of the patients. Antibiotic coated prostheses have much less positive cultures than non-coated devices.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5117975PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0061DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

antibiotic-coated non-coated
12
non-coated devices
12
non-infected penile
8
penile prosthesis
8
antibiotic coated
8
revision surgeries
8
devices antibiotic-coated
8
cultured patients
8
positive cultures
8
devices
7

Similar Publications

Background: As available data on implantation-related infections is contradictory, the aim was to identify the predictors of penile prosthesis infection.

Methods: We performed an umbrella review and meta-analysis including systematic reviews with extractable data. Literature search was done in two databases: PubMed and Google Scholar.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: Aim of this study is to investigate bacterial growth on non-infected devices and compare antibiotic-coated and non-coated implants.

Materials And Methods: The charts of 71 patients who underwent revision surgeries for penile prosthesis between 1995 and 2013 were reviewed. Of those, 31 devices were antibiotic-coated prostheses, while 40 of the implants were non-coated.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!