(148) Irrigation With 0.05% Chlorhexidine Gluconate Associated with Hydrophilic Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Infection: A Large Multi-Institutional Cohort Study

Abstract Introduction 0.05% Chlorhexidine Gluconate (CHG) has gained popularity as an irrigant and dip for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgery. Prior in vitro data is conflicting on the impact of CHG use with hydrophilic coated devices. Objective We sought to identify possible associations between CHG use and hydrophilic IPP infection rate. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2,933 patients undergoing IPP implantation across 14 referral centers. Data collection spanned from January 1, 2017 to March 1, 2024. Each surgeon contributed patients who underwent IPP implantation with CHG used as an irrigant and/or dip as well as an equal number of consecutive control patients without CHG use. The primary outcome was IPP explant for postoperative infection. Univariable analysis was used to compare patient demographics, and logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with infection. Results Hydrophilic devices were implanted in 2,150 patients. Median follow-up for non-CHG patients was 13 months (IQR 18) and four months (IQR 9) for CHG patients. The incidence of infection with intraoperative CHG use was significantly higher compared to those without CHG use (4.6%, 46/1,001 vs. 2.1%, 24/1,148, p0.001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, intraoperative CHG use was associated with infection (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.24-3.47, p=0.01). Additional variables associated with infection included immunosuppression, prior IPP infection, prior priapism, and revision surgery (p0.01, Table). On subgroup analyses, the increased infection risk of CHG was most clear when CHG was used as both irrigation and dip (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.19-3.46, p=0.01) and when CHG was used during revision surgery (OR 3.36, 95% CI 1.15-9.82, p=0.03). Conclusions In a large multi-institutional cohort, intraoperative CHG use was associated with an elevated incidence of hydrophilic IPP infection. Providers may take these findings into consideration when performing IPP surgery with hydrophilic devices, especially during revision surgery. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Intuitive Surgical, Fidelis, Urofill, Boston Scientific, Coloplast, Cynosure, Antares Pharma, Clarus Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharma; Endo Pharma