1264 Long-Term Infection Rates in Diabetic Patients Implanted With Antibiotic-Impregnated Versus Non-Impregnated Inflatable Penile Prostheses: 7-Year Outcomes

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction/Andrology: Peyronie's Disease/Surgical Therapy II1 Apr 20101264 LONG-TERM INFECTION RATES IN DIABETIC PATIENTS IMPLANTED WITH ANTIBIOTIC-IMPREGNATED VERSUS NON-IMPREGNATED INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHESES: 7-YEAR OUTCOMES John J. Mulcahy, Culley C. Carson, and Manya R. Harsch John J. MulcahyJohn J. Mulcahy Paradise Valley, AZ , Culley C. CarsonCulley C. Carson Chapel Hill, NC , and Manya R. HarschManya R. Harsch Minnetonka, MN View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.822AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Diabetic patients may be more prone to implant infections than other men with organic erectile dysfunction, and so reducing the risk of implant infections in this population is important. This is a large, long-term infection prevention outcomes analysis of diabetic men after initial implantation of their first inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) to determine whether outcomes for those receiving an IPP impregnated with a combination of minocycline and rifampin (M/R) were improved versus those receiving a non-impregnated prosthesis. Long-term (6.5-year follow-up) data on infection revision rates for antibiotic-impregnated and non-impregnated prostheses in diabetic men were recently the basis for FDA approval of infection reduction claims for the M/R-impregnated IPP, and even longer-term, 7-year follow-up data are now available for this population at risk. METHODS Reported rates of infection-related revisions for M/R-impregnated and non-impregnated implants were compared using data from patient information forms (PIFs) voluntarily filed with the manufacturer for first-time penile prostheses implanted between May 1, 2001 and December 31, 2008 in diabetics with erectile dysfunction. Survival from infection-related revisions was compared for these patients throughout 84 months of follow-up. RESULTS Mean age was 59.1 years for the 6,174 diabetic men in the M/R-impregnated group, with mean follow-up of 43 months. The non-impregnated group included 642 diabetic men with a mean age of 57.7 years and a mean of 78 months of follow-up. Infection revisions were significantly lower for M/R-impregnated implants (2.16%) than for non-impregnated prosthesis implants (5.30%) at 84 months of follow-up (log rank p<0.0001, see life table graph). CONCLUSIONS This long-term evidence from the largest known database of diabetic penile prosthesis recipients establishes that the use of an antibiotic-impregnated IPP instead of a non-impregnated IPP can decrease the risk of infection. Reducing the incidence of this disastrous complication represents a significant medical advance in erectile restoration for diabetic patients. © 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byMuench P (2012) Infections Versus Penile Implants: The War on BugsJournal of Urology, VOL. 189, NO. 5, (1631-1637), Online publication date: 1-May-2013. Volume 183Issue 4SApril 2010Page: e489 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2010 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information John J. Mulcahy Paradise Valley, AZ More articles by this author Culley C. Carson Chapel Hill, NC More articles by this author Manya R. Harsch Minnetonka, MN More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...