Minimising the risk of device infection in penile prosthetic surgery: a UK perspective

Abstract

We have reviewed articles published on penile prosthetic infection in Medline and EMBASE databases from 2000 to 2012 with the intention of signposting ‘best evidence’ for the UK prosthetic implanter. Using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence (LE), no paper exceeded an LE of 2b and the majority were LE 4 (case series) and LE 5 (expert opinion). This is not surprising from a UK perspective since HES data for 2009 to 2010 reported 263 penile prosthetic surgeries performed in 35 hospitals, with only five hospitals performing 15 or more. Our literature review suggests that the use of antibiotic-coated IPPs and measures aimed at reducing inoculating bacteria into the surgical wound with alcohol skin preparation, a no-touch technique and peri-operative antibiotic use are most important in minimising the risk of device infection. The use of post-operative antibiotics is contentious (LE 5). It remains unproven whether diabetics have a higher rate of prosthetic infection compared to nondiabetics. In cases of re-implantation for mechanical failure, it remains debatable whether a washout technique should be used and indeed uncertainty remains regarding the pathological role of biofilm in the causation of device infection in this scenario. A washout technique during salvage penile prosthetic surgery for device infection is advocated. Further research on biofilm may offer the best chance of reducing the incidence of device infections overall.