title: Penile prosthesis infection: progress in prevention and treatment.
abstract: Almost four decades ago, modern penile implants were introduced as a treatment of erectile dysfunction. Infection associated with placement of an implant is a feared complication, and fortunately, has become less common due to a number of measures, including antibiotic-coated devices and chlorhexidine-alcohol skin preparation. When an infection around an implant occurs, the device should be removed. An option, termed a salvage (or rescue) procedure, is cleansing the wound with a series of antiseptic solutions and replacing a new prosthesis during the same procedure, with success in the range of 85%. The alternative is to return at a later date to replace the implant. However, the latter approach is associated with a difficult insertion, a shorter erection, and a less satisfied patient. Most patients elected the salvage approach because they were highly motivated to continue sexual activity to have the implant placed initially.
authors.affiliation: johnmulc@gmail.com
authors.forename: John J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Mulcahy
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D008297:Male; D015917:Penile Prosthesis / Q000009:adverse effects*; D011300:Preoperative Care; D016459:Prosthesis-Related Infections / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000517:prevention & control / Q000628:therapy*
references.citation: J Urol. 1987 Apr;137(4):681-2
references.pmid: 3560322
references.citation: J Urol. 2008 Jan;179(1):186-90; discussion 190
references.pmid: 18001797
references.citation: J Urol. 1996 Aug;156(2 Pt 1):402-4
references.pmid: 8683689
references.citation: J Urol. 2006 Mar;175(3 Pt 1):1041-4; discussion 1044
references.pmid: 16469612
references.citation: J Urol. 1988 Jan;139(1):50-2
references.pmid: 3336104
references.citation: Urology. 1998 Aug;52(2):287-90
references.pmid: 9697796
references.citation: Int J Impot Res. 2000 Oct;12 Suppl 4:S108-11
references.pmid: 11035396
references.citation: J Urol. 1987 Jul;138(1):68-9
references.pmid: 3599223
references.citation: J Urol. 2004 Jul;172(1):153-6
references.pmid: 15201759
references.citation: J Urol. 1998 May;159(5):1537-9; discussion 1539-40
references.pmid: 9554349
references.citation: Urology. 1984 Feb;23(2):184-5
references.pmid: 6695489
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2010 Jan 7;362(1):18-26
references.pmid: 20054046
references.citation: J Urol. 1981 May;125(5):659-60
references.pmid: 7230335
references.citation: J Urol. 1996 Jan;155(1):155-7
references.pmid: 7490819
references.citation: J Sex Med. 2004 Sep;1(2):221-4
references.pmid: 16429621
references.citation: J Urol. 2004 Apr;171(4):1611-4
references.pmid: 15017233
references.citation: Int J Impot Res. 2005 Nov-Dec;17(6):535-8
references.pmid: 15988544
references.citation: J Urol. 1992 Feb;147(2):386-8
references.pmid: 1732600
references.citation: J Urol. 1987 Aug;138(2):312-4
references.pmid: 3599246
references.citation: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992 Jul;73(7):652-5
references.pmid: 1622321
references.citation: J Urol. 1987 Jul;138(1):65-7
references.pmid: 3599222