Coated Implants and “No Touch” Surgical Technique Decreases Risk of Infection in Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation to 0.46

Objective To explore whether a “no touch” enhancement to the surgical technique of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPPs) implantaion will further decrease infection rates. Materials and Methods A single surgeon performed 2347 IPPs between January 2002 and June 2011. Patients receiving each manufacture...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2012-06, Vol.79 (6), p.1310-1316
Hauptverfasser: Eid, J. Francois, Wilson, Steven K, Cleves, Mario, Salem, Emad A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1316
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1310
container_title Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)
container_volume 79
creator Eid, J. Francois
Wilson, Steven K
Cleves, Mario
Salem, Emad A
description Objective To explore whether a “no touch” enhancement to the surgical technique of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPPs) implantaion will further decrease infection rates. Materials and Methods A single surgeon performed 2347 IPPs between January 2002 and June 2011. Patients receiving each manufacturer's implants were stratified for age and diabetes. Since 2003, infection retardant–coated IPPs were implanted through the standardized penoscrotal approach. Since 2006, the “no touch” enhancement was added to the surgical procedure. Infection rates in the noncoated IPP, coated IPP with standard technique, and coated IPP implanted with “no touch” enhancement were calculated and subjected to statistical analysis. The two company's implants were scrutinized for their individual infection rates in each group. Results Patients in all the groups were similar for age and diabetes. 132 noncoated implants had an infection rate of 5.3%. In the years 2003-2005, 704 coated devices had a statistically significant improvement in incidence of infection to 2%. In the years 2006-2010, the “no touch” technique enhanced the standard surgical procedure in 1511 patients. Only 7 infections were seen yielding an infection incidence of 0.46%. There was no difference in the two manufacturer's infection rates. Differentiation between virgin and revision operation displayed no bias in the infection rate. Conclusion Infection-retardant coatings lower the risk of infection from 5.3% to 2%. The “no touch” enhancement to the surgical procedure further decreases the rate of infection to 0.46%. Neither manufacturer showed statistical superiority in survival from revision for infection.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.076
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1018632105</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0090429512001239</els_id><sourcerecordid>1018632105</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-8d46664be3669638a11fd4952d8f34ee4cd35a20549ad6b43655f6dca6dc37cf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFks1uEzEQx1cIREPhEUC-IHHZxfba3vUFhMJHI1WAaDhbjj3bON3Ywd5Fyq0nngJerk9SL0lB4oI01sjSb77-M0XxlOCKYCJebqoxhj5c7iuKCamy4UbcK2aE06aUUvL7xQxjiUtGJT8pHqW0wRgLIZqHxQmlnBLSNrPixzzoASxabHe99kNC2lt0c_3zY0DLMJr1zfUvdDHGS2d0j5Zg1t59GwG9BRNBJ0joi0tXKHRo4TswgwseOT99ej3oVQ_oM3g3uRjSsIbk0l0p_RseAsIVE4-LB53uEzw5-tPi6_t3y_lZef7pw2L-5rw0jOOhbC3LE7AV1EJIUbeakM4yyaltu5oBMGNrrinmTGorVqwWnHfCGp1f3ZiuPi1eHPLuYshzpEFtXTLQ54YgjEllaVtRU4J5RvkBNbn1FKFTu-i2Ou4zNHFCbdRxBWpagcqWV5Djnh1LjKst2D9Rd5pn4PkR0Cmr2kXtjUt_OS5FI9nUwOsDB1mQ7w6iSsaBN2BdzFIrG9x_W3n1TwbTOz-t8gr2kDZhjD6rrYhKVGF1Md3LdC6EYkxoLetbS_S-sQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1018632105</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Coated Implants and “No Touch” Surgical Technique Decreases Risk of Infection in Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation to 0.46</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Eid, J. Francois ; Wilson, Steven K ; Cleves, Mario ; Salem, Emad A</creator><creatorcontrib>Eid, J. Francois ; Wilson, Steven K ; Cleves, Mario ; Salem, Emad A</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To explore whether a “no touch” enhancement to the surgical technique of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPPs) implantaion will further decrease infection rates. Materials and Methods A single surgeon performed 2347 IPPs between January 2002 and June 2011. Patients receiving each manufacturer's implants were stratified for age and diabetes. Since 2003, infection retardant–coated IPPs were implanted through the standardized penoscrotal approach. Since 2006, the “no touch” enhancement was added to the surgical procedure. Infection rates in the noncoated IPP, coated IPP with standard technique, and coated IPP implanted with “no touch” enhancement were calculated and subjected to statistical analysis. The two company's implants were scrutinized for their individual infection rates in each group. Results Patients in all the groups were similar for age and diabetes. 132 noncoated implants had an infection rate of 5.3%. In the years 2003-2005, 704 coated devices had a statistically significant improvement in incidence of infection to 2%. In the years 2006-2010, the “no touch” technique enhanced the standard surgical procedure in 1511 patients. Only 7 infections were seen yielding an infection incidence of 0.46%. There was no difference in the two manufacturer's infection rates. Differentiation between virgin and revision operation displayed no bias in the infection rate. Conclusion Infection-retardant coatings lower the risk of infection from 5.3% to 2%. The “no touch” enhancement to the surgical procedure further decreases the rate of infection to 0.46%. Neither manufacturer showed statistical superiority in survival from revision for infection.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-4295</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-9995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.076</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22521187</identifier><identifier>CODEN: URGYAZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration &amp; dosage ; Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods ; Biological and medical sciences ; Diabetes Complications - surgery ; Erectile Dysfunction - etiology ; Erectile Dysfunction - surgery ; Humans ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases ; Penile Implantation - methods ; Penile Prosthesis ; Prosthesis Design ; Prosthesis-Related Infections - epidemiology ; Prosthesis-Related Infections - prevention &amp; control ; Reoperation ; Urology</subject><ispartof>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.), 2012-06, Vol.79 (6), p.1310-1316</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2012 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-8d46664be3669638a11fd4952d8f34ee4cd35a20549ad6b43655f6dca6dc37cf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-8d46664be3669638a11fd4952d8f34ee4cd35a20549ad6b43655f6dca6dc37cf3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.076$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,3551,27926,27927,45997</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=25967945$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22521187$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Eid, J. Francois</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Steven K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cleves, Mario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salem, Emad A</creatorcontrib><title>Coated Implants and “No Touch” Surgical Technique Decreases Risk of Infection in Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation to 0.46</title><title>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</title><addtitle>Urology</addtitle><description>Objective To explore whether a “no touch” enhancement to the surgical technique of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPPs) implantaion will further decrease infection rates. Materials and Methods A single surgeon performed 2347 IPPs between January 2002 and June 2011. Patients receiving each manufacturer's implants were stratified for age and diabetes. Since 2003, infection retardant–coated IPPs were implanted through the standardized penoscrotal approach. Since 2006, the “no touch” enhancement was added to the surgical procedure. Infection rates in the noncoated IPP, coated IPP with standard technique, and coated IPP implanted with “no touch” enhancement were calculated and subjected to statistical analysis. The two company's implants were scrutinized for their individual infection rates in each group. Results Patients in all the groups were similar for age and diabetes. 132 noncoated implants had an infection rate of 5.3%. In the years 2003-2005, 704 coated devices had a statistically significant improvement in incidence of infection to 2%. In the years 2006-2010, the “no touch” technique enhanced the standard surgical procedure in 1511 patients. Only 7 infections were seen yielding an infection incidence of 0.46%. There was no difference in the two manufacturer's infection rates. Differentiation between virgin and revision operation displayed no bias in the infection rate. Conclusion Infection-retardant coatings lower the risk of infection from 5.3% to 2%. The “no touch” enhancement to the surgical procedure further decreases the rate of infection to 0.46%. Neither manufacturer showed statistical superiority in survival from revision for infection.</description><subject>Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Diabetes Complications - surgery</subject><subject>Erectile Dysfunction - etiology</subject><subject>Erectile Dysfunction - surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases</subject><subject>Penile Implantation - methods</subject><subject>Penile Prosthesis</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Prosthesis-Related Infections - epidemiology</subject><subject>Prosthesis-Related Infections - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Reoperation</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>0090-4295</issn><issn>1527-9995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFks1uEzEQx1cIREPhEUC-IHHZxfba3vUFhMJHI1WAaDhbjj3bON3Ywd5Fyq0nngJerk9SL0lB4oI01sjSb77-M0XxlOCKYCJebqoxhj5c7iuKCamy4UbcK2aE06aUUvL7xQxjiUtGJT8pHqW0wRgLIZqHxQmlnBLSNrPixzzoASxabHe99kNC2lt0c_3zY0DLMJr1zfUvdDHGS2d0j5Zg1t59GwG9BRNBJ0joi0tXKHRo4TswgwseOT99ej3oVQ_oM3g3uRjSsIbk0l0p_RseAsIVE4-LB53uEzw5-tPi6_t3y_lZef7pw2L-5rw0jOOhbC3LE7AV1EJIUbeakM4yyaltu5oBMGNrrinmTGorVqwWnHfCGp1f3ZiuPi1eHPLuYshzpEFtXTLQ54YgjEllaVtRU4J5RvkBNbn1FKFTu-i2Ou4zNHFCbdRxBWpagcqWV5Djnh1LjKst2D9Rd5pn4PkR0Cmr2kXtjUt_OS5FI9nUwOsDB1mQ7w6iSsaBN2BdzFIrG9x_W3n1TwbTOz-t8gr2kDZhjD6rrYhKVGF1Md3LdC6EYkxoLetbS_S-sQ</recordid><startdate>20120601</startdate><enddate>20120601</enddate><creator>Eid, J. Francois</creator><creator>Wilson, Steven K</creator><creator>Cleves, Mario</creator><creator>Salem, Emad A</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120601</creationdate><title>Coated Implants and “No Touch” Surgical Technique Decreases Risk of Infection in Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation to 0.46</title><author>Eid, J. Francois ; Wilson, Steven K ; Cleves, Mario ; Salem, Emad A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-8d46664be3669638a11fd4952d8f34ee4cd35a20549ad6b43655f6dca6dc37cf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Diabetes Complications - surgery</topic><topic>Erectile Dysfunction - etiology</topic><topic>Erectile Dysfunction - surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases</topic><topic>Penile Implantation - methods</topic><topic>Penile Prosthesis</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Prosthesis-Related Infections - epidemiology</topic><topic>Prosthesis-Related Infections - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Reoperation</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Eid, J. Francois</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Steven K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cleves, Mario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salem, Emad A</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Eid, J. Francois</au><au>Wilson, Steven K</au><au>Cleves, Mario</au><au>Salem, Emad A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Coated Implants and “No Touch” Surgical Technique Decreases Risk of Infection in Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation to 0.46</atitle><jtitle>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</jtitle><addtitle>Urology</addtitle><date>2012-06-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>79</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1310</spage><epage>1316</epage><pages>1310-1316</pages><issn>0090-4295</issn><eissn>1527-9995</eissn><coden>URGYAZ</coden><abstract>Objective To explore whether a “no touch” enhancement to the surgical technique of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPPs) implantaion will further decrease infection rates. Materials and Methods A single surgeon performed 2347 IPPs between January 2002 and June 2011. Patients receiving each manufacturer's implants were stratified for age and diabetes. Since 2003, infection retardant–coated IPPs were implanted through the standardized penoscrotal approach. Since 2006, the “no touch” enhancement was added to the surgical procedure. Infection rates in the noncoated IPP, coated IPP with standard technique, and coated IPP implanted with “no touch” enhancement were calculated and subjected to statistical analysis. The two company's implants were scrutinized for their individual infection rates in each group. Results Patients in all the groups were similar for age and diabetes. 132 noncoated implants had an infection rate of 5.3%. In the years 2003-2005, 704 coated devices had a statistically significant improvement in incidence of infection to 2%. In the years 2006-2010, the “no touch” technique enhanced the standard surgical procedure in 1511 patients. Only 7 infections were seen yielding an infection incidence of 0.46%. There was no difference in the two manufacturer's infection rates. Differentiation between virgin and revision operation displayed no bias in the infection rate. Conclusion Infection-retardant coatings lower the risk of infection from 5.3% to 2%. The “no touch” enhancement to the surgical procedure further decreases the rate of infection to 0.46%. Neither manufacturer showed statistical superiority in survival from revision for infection.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>22521187</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.076</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0090-4295
ispartof Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.), 2012-06, Vol.79 (6), p.1310-1316
issn 0090-4295
1527-9995
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1018632105
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration & dosage
Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods
Biological and medical sciences
Diabetes Complications - surgery
Erectile Dysfunction - etiology
Erectile Dysfunction - surgery
Humans
Male
Medical sciences
Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases
Penile Implantation - methods
Penile Prosthesis
Prosthesis Design
Prosthesis-Related Infections - epidemiology
Prosthesis-Related Infections - prevention & control
Reoperation
Urology
title Coated Implants and “No Touch” Surgical Technique Decreases Risk of Infection in Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation to 0.46
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T10%3A01%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Coated%20Implants%20and%20%E2%80%9CNo%20Touch%E2%80%9D%20Surgical%20Technique%20Decreases%20Risk%20of%20Infection%20in%20Inflatable%20Penile%20Prosthesis%20Implantation%20to%200.46&rft.jtitle=Urology%20(Ridgewood,%20N.J.)&rft.au=Eid,%20J.%20Francois&rft.date=2012-06-01&rft.volume=79&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1310&rft.epage=1316&rft.pages=1310-1316&rft.issn=0090-4295&rft.eissn=1527-9995&rft.coden=URGYAZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.076&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1018632105%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1018632105&rft_id=info:pmid/22521187&rft_els_id=S0090429512001239&rfr_iscdi=true