RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Management protocols for treatment of severe erectile dysfunction have changed little in the last 20 years. Most algorithms consider penile prostheses as the last option of treatment in patients who have failed medical management. Despite multiple advances in current devices, prosthetic infection remains the most feared complication by implanting surgeons and patients. This report tries to make a compilation of the factors that can be impacted to prevent penile implant infections, and to make penile implantation a safer and more reliable way to solve an erection deficit. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: List events related to the surgical act (pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative) that are related to the risk of infection to contextualize possible actions/measures used to avoid prosthetic infection. RECENT FINDINGS: The impact of coated implants on reduction of infection rates. The recommendation to use chlorhexidine-based solutions over iodine solution for preoperative skin preps. Appears to be no difference in infection rates according to the approach chosen by the surgeon (infrapubic vs penoscrotal). The change in the microbial colonies that are colonizing implants in recent years are dramatic. Lack of evidence of which solutions to use for salvage or revision washout surgery: Chemical eradication or mechanical lavage cleansing?. Despite the importance of metabolic control in the literature, there is a disparity in exact glycemic values âprior to the intervention in our literature. Factors such as preparation of the operative site, presence of comorbidities or previous surgeries, surgical time, or additional maneuvers during surgery can negatively impact the final result of penile prosthetic surgery.
Assuntos
Disfunção Erétil , Doenças do Pênis , Implante Peniano , Prótese de Pênis , Disfunção Erétil/etiologia , Disfunção Erétil/prevenção & controle , Disfunção Erétil/cirurgia , Humanos , Masculino , Doenças do Pênis/etiologia , Implante Peniano/efeitos adversos , Implante Peniano/métodos , Prótese de Pênis/efeitos adversos , Pênis/cirurgiaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Disfunção Erétil , Implante Peniano , Prótese de Pênis , Disfunção Erétil/etiologia , Disfunção Erétil/cirurgia , Humanos , Masculino , Implante Peniano/efeitos adversos , Prótese de Pênis/efeitos adversos , Estudos Prospectivos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
ABSTRACT Objective: To propose a new way to objectively evaluate the external sphincter function prior to male sling surgery. Materials and Methods: We evaluated the pre-operative sphincter function throughout sphincter pressure at rest (SPAR) and sphincter pressure under contraction (SPUC) obtained throughout urethral profilometry profile (UPP) of 10 consecutive patients (age range, 54-79 years) treated with the retrourethral transobturator sling (RTS) for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) because of prostate surgery. The primary endpoint for surgery success rate was post-operative pad weight test. This was correlated to pre-operative pad test, RT, SPAR and SPUC. Post-operatively patients were classified as continent (no pad use) and those who still were incontinent. Results: Mean SPUC in the continent and incontinent group was respectively 188 + 8.8 (median 185.1, range 181 to 201) and 96.9 + 49.4 (median 109.9, range 35.6 to 163.6) (P = 0.008). Mean 24-hour pad test was 151 + 84.2gm (median 140, range 80 to 245) and 973 + 337.1gm (median 1940, range 550 to 1200) in post-operative continent and incontinent groups respectively (P = 0.008). The repositioning test (RT) was positive in all continent patients except one. The RT was also positive in three incontinence patients (false positive). In all post-operative continent patients SPUC was higher than 180cmH2O and pre-operative pad test was less than 245gm. Conclusions: SPUC seems to be a way for optimizing the sphincter evaluation as well to become a useful tool for patient selection prior to RTS surgery.
Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Idoso , Prostatectomia/efeitos adversos , Incontinência Urinária por Estresse/etiologia , Esfíncter Urinário Artificial/efeitos adversos , Esfíncter Esofágico Inferior/fisiologia , Slings Suburetrais/efeitos adversos , Período Pós-Operatório , Incontinência Urinária por Estresse/cirurgia , Seguimentos , Pessoa de Meia-IdadeRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To propose a new way to objectively evaluate the external sphincter function prior to male sling surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the pre-operative sphincter function throughout sphincter pressure at rest (SPAR) and sphincter pressure under contraction (SPUC) obtained throughout urethral profilometry profile (UPP) of 10 consecutive patients (age range, 54-79 years) treated with the retrourethral transobturator sling (RTS) for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) because of prostate surgery. The primary endpoint for surgery success rate was post-operative pad weight test. This was correlated to preoperative pad test, RT, SPAR and SPUC. Post-operatively patients were classified as continent (no pad use) and those who still were incontinent. RESULTS: Mean SPUC in the continent and incontinent group was respectively 188 + 8.8 (median 185.1, range 181 to 201) and 96.9 + 49.4 (median 109.9, range 35.6 to 163.6) (P = 0.008). Mean 24-hour pad test was 151 + 84.2gm (median 140, range 80 to 245) and 973 + 337.1gm (median 1940, range 550 to 1200) in post-operative continent and incontinent groups respectively (P = 0.008). The repositioning test (RT) was positive in all continent patients except one. The RT was also positive in three incontinence patients (false positive). In all post-operative continent patients SPUC was higher than 180cmH2O and pre-operative pad test was less than 245gm. CONCLUSIONS: SPUC seems to be a way for optimizing the sphincter evaluation as well to become a useful tool for patient selection prior to RTS surgery.