A new technique of intraoperative prevention of infectious complications during penile prosthesis implantation
S. V. Popov,
E. Lledo-Garcia,
I. N. Orlov,
T. M. Topuzov,
P. S. Kyzlasov,
D. V. Gribanov,
I. Yu. Pestryakov https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2020-8-4-129-134
Abstract
Penile prosthetics is the «gold standard» for treatment of severe or drug-induced refractory erectile dysfunction. One of the most formidable postoperative complications of penile prosthetics is periprosthetic infection. Currently, infusion and topical application of broad-spectrum antibacterial drugs is used for the prevention of prosthetic infectious complications. One of the means for the prevention of postoperative infectious complications is the Alexis retractor (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA). It is a port that is installed in the surgical area and limits the contact of the prosthesis components with the surrounding tissues and skin, achieving optimal wound visualization. The use of Alexis provides atraumatic retraction of the wound edges and 360-degree protection of the wound from the contact of the implant components with adjacent tissues and skin.
About the Authors
S. V. Popov
St. Luke Clinical Hospital; S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Russian Federation
Sergey V. Popov — M.D., Dr.Sc. (M), Full Prof.; Prof., Dept. of Urology, S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy; Chief Medical Officer, St. Luke Clinical Hospital.
194044, St. Petersburg, 46 Chugunnaya st.; 194044, St. Petersburg, 6 Academician Lebedev st.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
E. Lledo-Garcia
Hospital General of Gregorio Maranon University
Spain
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Spain
Enrique Lledo-Garcia — M.D., Ph.D., Prof.; Head, Andrology and Urethro-Genital Reconstructive Surgery Division, Hospital General of Gregorio Maranon University.
28007, Madrid, 46 Dr. Esquerdo st.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
I. N. Orlov
St. Luke Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Russian Federation
Igor N. Orlov — M.D., Cand.Sc.(M); Head, Urological Division No.1, City Centre of Endoscopic Urology and New Technologies, St. Luke Clinical Hospital; Assist., Dept. of Urology, Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University.
194044, St. Petersburg, 46 Chugunnaya st.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
T. M. Topuzov
St. Luke Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Russian Federation
Timur M. Topuzov - M.D., Cand.Sc. (M); Urologist, Urological Division No.1, City Centre of Endoscopic Urology and New Technologies, St. Luke Clinical Hospital.
194044, St. Petersburg, 46 Chugunnaya st.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
P. S. Kyzlasov
Russian Federation State Research Center - Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Russian Federation
Pavel S. Kyzlasov — M.D., Dr.Sc. (M); Head, Urology and Andrology Center, Russian Federation State Research Center -Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center.
123098, Moscow, 23 Marshal Novikov st.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
D. V. Gribanov
St. Luke Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Russian Federation
Dmitrii V. Gribanov — M.D.; Anesthesiologist, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Division, St. Luke Clinical Hospital.
194044, St. Petersburg, 46 Chugunnaya st.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
I. Yu. Pestryakov
St. Luke Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Russian Federation
Ilya Yu. Pestriakov — Resident, Urological Division No.1, City Centre of Endoscopic Urology and New Technologies, St. Luke Clinical Hospital.
194044, St. Petersburg, 46 Chugunnaya st.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Baas W, O'Connor B, Welliver C, Stahl PJ, Stember DS, Wilson SK, Kohler TS. Worldwide trends in penile implantation surgery: data from over 63,000 implants. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9(1):31-37. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.09.26
2. Popov S.V., Orlov I.N., Grin' Y.A., Malevich S.M., Gul'ko A.M., Topuzo T.M., Kyzlasov P.S., Povelitsa E.A. Erectile dysfunction: new technologies and approaches in diagnostics and treatment. Urology Herald. 2020;8(2):78-92. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21886/2308-6424-2020-8-2-78-92
3. Gross MS, Phillips EA, Carrasquillo RJ, Thornton A, Greenfield JM, Levine LA, Alukal JP, Conners WP 3rd, Glina S, Tanrikut C, Honig SC, Becher EF, Bennett NE, Wang R, Perito PE, Stahl PJ, Rossello Gaya M, Rossello Barbara M, Cedeno JD, Gheiler EL, Kalejaiye O, Ralph DJ, Kohler TS, Stember DS, Carrion RE, Maria PP, Brant WO, Bickell MW, Garber BB, Pineda M, Burnett AL 2nd, Eid JF, Henry GD, Munarriz RM. Multicenter Investigation of the Micro-Organisms Involved in Penile Prosthesis Infection: An Analysis of the Efficacy of the AUA and EAU Guidelines for Penile Prosthesis Prophylaxis. J Sex Med. 2017;14(3):455-463. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.01.007
4. Udalov Yu.D., Kyzlasov P.S., Martov A.G., Zabelin M.V., Kazhera A.A. The preoperative and postoperative period when phalloendoprosthesis. Bulletin of the Russian Military Medical Academy. 2018;1(61):222-224. (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 32855548
5. Kyzlasov P.S., Martov A.G., Pomeshkin E. V., Troyakov V.M., Kapsargin F.P. Treatment of peyronie''s disease. Medicine in Kuzbass. 2017;16(1);3-10. (In Russ.). eLIBRARY ID: 28779424
6. Kogan M.I., Krasulin V.V., Sizyakin D.V., Shangichev A.V., Gluhov V.V. Experience 2500 implantation of penile semirigidity prostheses for erectile dysfunction. Urology Herald. 2013;(2):27-29. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21886/2308-6424-2013-02-27-29
7. Moncada I, Martinez-Salamanca JI, Allona A, Hernandez C. Current role of penile implants for erectile dysfunction. Curr Opin Urol. 2004;14(6):375-80. DOI: 10.1097/00042307200411000-00014
8. Akula KP, Raheem OA. Fundamentals of prosthetic urology. Asian J Androl. 2020;22(1):20-27. DOI: 10.4103/aja.aja_108_19
9. Eid JF, Wilson SK, Cleves M, Salem EA. Coated implants and “no touch” surgical technique decreases risk of infection in inflatable penile prosthesis implantation to 0.46%. Urology. 2012;79(6):1310-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.076
10. Serefoglu EC, Mandava SH, Gokce A, Chouhan JD, Wilson SK, Hellstrom WJ. Long-term revision rate due to infection in hydrophilic-coated inflatable penile prostheses: 11-year follow-up. J Sex Med. 2012;9(8):2182-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02830.x
11. Mulcahy JJ, Wilson SK. Current use of penile implants in erectile dysfunction. Curr Urol Rep. 2006;7(6):485-9. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-006-0059-0
12. Mulcahy JJ. Current approach to the treatment of penile implant infections. Ther Adv Urol. 2010;2(2):69-75. DOI: 10.1177/1756287210370330
Review
For citations:
Popov S.V., Lledo-Garcia E., Orlov I.N., Topuzov T.M., Kyzlasov P.S., Gribanov D.V., Pestryakov I.Yu. A new technique of intraoperative prevention of infectious complications during penile prosthesis implantation. Urology Herald. 2020;8(4):129-134. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2020-8-4-129-134
Views:
2292
Email this article 
