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.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Risk factors associated with penile prosthesis infection: systematic review and meta-analysis

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 32, pages 587–597 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to identify the factors associated with infection in patients who undergo penile prosthesis implantation.

Methods

We performed a systematic review/meta-analysis, including clinical trials, quasi-experiments, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, and case-control studies. Searching was done in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. Participants were patients who had erectile dysfunction, regardless of the etiology, and underwent penile prosthesis implantation. Two researchers reviewed each reference by title and abstract. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan® 5.3).

Results

A total of 513 studies were found with the search strategies. After excluding duplicates, 40 studies with a total of 175,592 patients were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Among patient characteristics, we found that diabetes mellitus and immunosuppression appear to have increase odds of infection. Related to the procedure, infection-retardant-coated penile prosthesis and primary (first) surgery appear to lower odds of infection.

Conclusions

Diabetes mellitus and immunosuppression were associated with increased infection rates; infection-retardant coating of the prosthesis and primary surgery were associated with reduced infection rates.

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
Fig. 2: Risk of bias.
Fig. 3: Forest plot for associated risk factors.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NIH Consensus Conference. Impotence. NIH consensus development panel on impotence. JAMA. 1993;270:83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rew KT, Heidelbaugh JJ. Erectile dysfunction. Am Fam Phys. 2016;94:820–7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Billups KL, Bank AJ, Padma-Nathan H, Katz S, Williams R. Erectile dysfunction is a marker for cardiovascular disease: results of the minority health institute expert advisory panel. J Sex Med. 2005;2:50–2.40–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Eardley I. The incidence, prevalence, and natural history of erectile dysfunction. Sex Med Rev. 2013;1:3–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Johannes CB, Araujo AB, Feldman HA, Derby CA, Kleinman KP, McKinlay JB. Incidence of erectile dysfunction in men 40 to 69 years old: longitudinal results from the Massachusetts male aging study. J Urol. 2000;163:460–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hatzimouratidis K, Amar E, Eardley I, Giuliano F, Hatzichristou D, Montorsi F, et al. Guidelines on male sexual dysfunction: erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation. Eur Urol. 2010;57:804–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hofer MD, Gonzalez CM. Current concepts in infections associated with penile prostheses and artificial sphincters. Urol Clin N Am. 2015;42:485–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Muench PJ. Infections versus penile implants: the war on bugs. J Urol. 2013;189:1631–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mirheydar H, Zhou T, Chang DC, Hsieh T-C. Reoperation rates for penile prosthetic surgery. J Sex Med. 2016;13:129–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Carson CC. Infections in genitourinary prostheses. Urol Clin N Am. 1989;16:139–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Darouiche RO, Bella AJ, Boone TB, Brock G, Broderick GA, Burnett AL, et al. North American consensus document on infection of penile prostheses. Urology. 2013;82:937–42.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mulcahy JJ, Kramer A, Brant WO, Parker JL, Perito PE, Myers JB, et al. Current management of penile implant infections, device reliability, and optimizing cosmetic outcome. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15:413.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gross MS, Phillips EA, Carrasquillo RJ, Thornton A, Greenfield JM, Levine LA, et al. Multicenter investigation of the microorganisms 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pineda M, Burnett AL. Penile prosthesis infections—a review of risk factors, prevention, and treatment. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4:389–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Higgins J, Green S, Editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Accessed 9 Jan 2018.

  20. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Grewal S, Vetter J, Brandes SB, Strope SA. A population-based analysis of contemporary rates of reoperation for penile prosthesis procedures. Urology. 2014;84:112–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Madbouly K, AlHajeri D, Habous M, Binsaleh S. Association of the modified frailty index with adverse outcomes after penile prosthesis implantation. Aging Male. 2017;20:119–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Xie D, Gheiler V, Lopez I, Nehrenz GM, Klopukh B, Bianco F, et al. Experience with prophylactic gentamicin during penile prosthesis surgery: a retrospective comparison of two different doses. J Sex Med. 2017;14:1160–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sundaram V, Cordon BH, Hofer MD, Morey AF. Is risk of artificial urethral sphincter cuff erosion higher in patients with penile prosthesis? J Sex Med. 2016;13:1432–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Habous M, Farag M, Williamson B, Laban O, Mahmoud S, Abdelwahab O, et al. Conservative therapy is an effective option in patients with localized infection after penile implant surgery. J Sex Med. 2016;13:972–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Pineda M, Burnett AL. Distinguishing failure to cure from complication after penile prosthesis implantation. J Sex Med. 2017;14:731–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Balen A, Gross MS, Phillips EA, Henry GD, Munarriz R. Active polysubstance abuse concurrent with surgery as a possible newly identified infection risk factor in inflatable penile prosthesis placement based on a retrospective analysis of health and socioeconomic factors. J Sex Med. 2016;13:697–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Antonini G, Busetto GM, De Berardinis E, Giovannone R, Vicini P, Del Giudice F, et al. Minimally invasive infrapubic inflatable penile prosthesis implant for erectile dysfunction: evaluation of efficacy, satisfaction profile and complications. Int J Impot Res. 2016;28:4–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Garber BB, Bickell M. Subcutaneous placement of inflatable penile prosthesis reservoirs. Urology. 2016;88:93–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Segal RL, Cabrini MR, Harris ED, Mostwin JL, Bivalacqua TJ, Burnett AL. Combined inflatable penile prosthesis-artificial urinary sphincter implantation: no increased risk of adverse events compared to single or staged device implantation. J Urol. 2013;190:2183–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chung E, Van CT, Wilson I, Cartmill RA. Penile prosthesis implantation for the treatment for male erectile dysfunction: clinical outcomes and lessons learnt after 955 procedures. World J Urol. 2013;31:591–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nehra A, Carson CC, Chapin AK, Ginkel AM. Long-term infection outcomes of 3-piece antibiotic impregnated penile prostheses used in replacement implant surgery. J Urol. 2012;188:899–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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;9:2182–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cuellar DC, Sklar GN. Penile prosthesis in the organ transplant recipient. Urology. 2001;57:138–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Garber BB, Marcus SM. Does surgical approach affect the incidence of inflatable penile prosthesis infection? Urology. 1998;52:291–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Govier FE, Gibbons RP, Correa RJ, Pritchett TR, Kramer-Levien D. Mechanical reliability, surgical complications, and patient and partner satisfaction of the modern three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. Urology. 1998;52:282–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wilson SK, Carson CC, Cleves MA, Delk JR. Quantifying risk of penile prosthesis infection with elevated glycosylated hemoglobin. J Urol. 1998;159:1537–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jarow JP. Risk factors for penile prosthetic infection. J Urol. 1996;156:402–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Randrup ER. Clinical experience with 180 inflatable penile prostheses. South Med J. 1995;88:47–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lynch MJ, Scott GM, Inglis JA, Pryor JP. Reducing the loss of implants following penile prosthetic surgery. Br J Urol. 1994;73:423–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Bishop JR, Moul JW, Sihelnik SA, Peppas DS, Gormley TS, McLeod DG. Use of glycosylated hemoglobin to identify diabetics at high risk for penile periprosthetic infections. J Urol. 1992;147:386–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Collins KP, Hackler RH. Complications of penile prostheses in the spinal cord injury population. J Urol. 1988;140:984–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sun AY, Babbar P, Gill BC, Angermeier KW, Montague DK. Penile prosthesis in solid organ transplant recipients—a matched cohort study. Urology. 2018;117:86–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Loh-Doyle J, Patil MB, Sawkar H, Wayne K, Boyd SD. 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis placement following radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion: technique and outcomes. J Sex Med. 2018;15:907–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Canguven O, Talib R, El Ansari W, Khalafalla K, Al Ansari A. Is Hba1c level of diabetic patients associated with penile prosthesis implantation infections? Aging Male. 2018:1–6.

  48. Habous M, Tal R, Tealab A, Soliman T, Nassar M, Mekawi Z, et al. Defining a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level that predicts increased risk of penile implant infection. BJU Int. 2018;121:293–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Owusu R, Seybold K, Qi D, Liu G, Hsieh T-C. MP25-11 the rise of outpatient penile prosthesis surgery: a cross-sectional analysis of national trends. J Urol. 2017. https://www.jurology.com/doi/abs/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.761. Acessed 5 Jan 2019.

  51. Gross MS, Wallen JJ, Madiraju SK, Tayon KG, Munarriz RM, Perito PE. 198 a retrospective analysis of the influence of high dose gentamicin on IPP infection rates. J Sex Med. 2017;14:e84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kohler TS, Moore A, Ring J. 145 a contemporary series of penile implant complications occurring at a training institution. J Sex Med. 2016;13:S68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 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;8:1540–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Mulcahy JJ, Carson CC. Long-term infection rates in diabetic patients implanted with antibiotic-impregnated versus nonimpregnated inflatable penile prostheses: 7-year outcomes. Eur Urol. 2011;60:167–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Minervini A, Ralph DJ, Pryor JP. Outcome of penile prosthesis implantation for treating erectile dysfunction: experience with 504 procedures. BJU Int. 2006;97:129–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Droggin D, Shabsigh R, Anastasiadis AG. Antibiotic coating reduces penile prosthesis infection. J Sex Med. 2005;2:565–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Carson CC. Efficacy of antibiotic impregnation of inflatable penile prostheses in decreasing infection in original implants. J Urol. 2004;171:1611–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, McConnell JD, Hendin BN. Factors influencing the outcomes of penile prosthesis surgery at a teaching institution. Urology. 2003;62:918–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Yeung LL, Grewal S, Bullock A, Lai HH, Brandes SB. A comparison of chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for eliminating skin flora before genitourinary prosthetic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2013;189:136–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Henry GD, Wilson SK, Delk JR, Carson CC, Wiygul J, Tornehl C, et al. Revision washout decreases penile prosthesis infection in revision surgery: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2005;173:89–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urologic Surgery and Andrology, CES University, Medellin, Colombia

    Alejandro Carvajal

  2. Department of Urology, CES University, Medellin, Colombia

    Johana Benavides

  3. School of Medicine, UROGIV Research Group, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia

    Herney Andrés García-Perdomo

  4. Ark-La-Tex Urology, Bossier City, LA, USA

    Gerard D. Henry

Authors
  1. Alejandro Carvajal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johana Benavides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Herney Andrés García-Perdomo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gerard D. Henry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerard D. Henry.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carvajal, A., Benavides, J., García-Perdomo, H.A. et al. Risk factors associated with penile prosthesis infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Impot Res 32, 587–597 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0232-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0232-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links