ArticleInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
Non-infected penile prosthesis cultures during revision surgery; comparison between antibiotic coated and non - coated devices.
Article in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review of penile implant biofilms-what do we know and what remains unknown?Translational andrology and urology · 2022Article
- Prevention of Penile Prosthesis Infection.Current urology reports · 2022Review
- Penile implant infection prevention part II: device coatings have changed the game.International journal of impotence research · 2020Review
- A Surgeon's Guide to the Various Antibiotic Dips Available During Penile Prosthesis Implantation.Current urology reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAim of this study is to investigate bacterial growth on non-infected devices and compare antibiotic-coated and non-coated implants. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe charts of 71 patients who underwent revision surgeries for penile prosthesis between 1995 and 2013 were reviewed. Of those, 31 devices were antibiotic-coated prostheses, while 40 of the implants were non-coated. Swab cultures were routinely obtained from corporal, pump or reservoir site during the operation. If a bacterial biofilm was determined on the prosthesis, it was also cultured.
resultsA total of 5 different organisms were cultured from 18 patients. Of them, 4 devices were antibiotic-coated and the other 14 were non-coated devices. Staphylococcus epidermidis was the most common organism, while Staphylococcus hominis, beta hemolitic streptococcus, Escherichia coli and Proteus mirabilis were also cultured. All patients who had positive cultures were treated with appropriate antibiotics for four weeks postoperatively. Median follow-up time was 41 months, ranging between 8 and 82 months. One prosthesis (non-coated) became clinically infected in the follow-up period with a totally different organism. Culture positivity rates of antibiotic-coated and non-coated devices were 13% and 35% respectively and the result was significant (p=0.00254).
conclusionsPositive bacterial cultures are present on non-infected penile prostheses at revision surgeries in some of the patients. Antibiotic coated prostheses have much less positive cultures than non-coated devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.