Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, urology was one of the specialties with the lowest rates of telemedicine and videoconferencing use. Common barriers to the implementation of telemedicine included a lack of technological literacy, concerns with reimbursement, and resistance to changes in the workplace. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic declared in March 2020, the delivery of urological services globally has quickly shifted to telemedicine to account for the mass clinical, procedural, and operative cancellations, inadequate personal protective equipment, and shortage of personnel. OBJECTIVE:To investigate current telemedicine usage by urologists, urologist perceptions on the necessity of in-person clinic appointments, the usability of telemedicine, and the current barriers to its implementation. METHODS:We performed a global, cross-sectional web-based survey to investigate the use of telemedicine before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Urologists' perceived usability of telemedicine was assessed using a modified Delphi approach to create questions based on a modified version of the validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). For the purposes of this study, telemedicine was defined as video calls only. RESULTS:A total of 620 urologists from 58 different countries and 6 continents participated in the survey. Prior to COVID-19, 15.8% of urologists surveyed were using telemedicine in their clinical practices; during the pandemic, that proportion increased to 46.1%. Of the urologists without telemedicine experience, interest in usage of telemedicine increased from 43.7 to 80.8% during COVID-19. Among urologists that used telemedicine during the pandemic, 80.9% were interested in continuing to use it in their practice. The three most commonly used platforms were Zoom, Doxy.me, and Epic and the top three barriers to implementing telemedicine were patient lack of technological comprehension, patient lack of access to required technology, and reimbursement concerns. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first study to quantify the use, usability, and pervading interest in telemedicine amongst urologists during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the face of this pandemic, urologists' usage of telemedicine nearly tripled, demonstrating their ability to adopt and adapt telemedicine into their practices, but barriers involving the technology itself are still preventing many from utilizing it despite increasing interest.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:American Urological Association (AUA) antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations may be insufficient for covering organisms commonly found in penile prosthesis infections. In this study we assess the difference between AUA recommended antibiotic prophylaxis and nonstandard prophylaxis in preventing device infections in penile prosthesis surgery performed in diabetic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of diabetic patients undergoing primary penile prosthesis surgery was performed between April 2003 and August 2018. Eighteen institutions from the United States, Europe and Korea contributed. The association between antibiotic prophylaxis type and postoperative penile prosthesis infections, device explantations and revision surgeries was assessed. RESULTS:Standard AUA antibiotic prophylaxis was followed in 48.6% (391) of cases while nonstandard prophylaxis was used in 51.4% (413). Common nonstandard antibiotic prophylaxis included vancomycin-gentamycin-fluoroquinolone, clindamycin-fluoroquinolone, and vancomycin-fluoroquinolone among other combinations. Patients who received AUA prophylaxis had significantly more postoperative device infections (5.6% vs 1.9%, p <0.01) and explantations (8.3% vs 2.0%, p <0.001) compared to those who received nonstandard prophylaxis. Patients who received AUA prophylaxis had significantly higher odds of a postoperative device infection (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.1-7.3) and explantation (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.4-9.1) compared to those who received nonstandard prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS:Diabetic men with erectile dysfunction who received standard AUA prophylaxis for penile prosthesis surgery had significantly greater odds of experiencing a postoperative device infection and device explantation compared to patients who received nonstandard prophylaxis. Our study provides a strong rationale for a prospective investigation to establish the most appropriate prophylaxis strategy in penile prosthesis surgery.

BACKGROUND:Modern-day penile prostheses use infection retardant coating to decrease rates of postoperative infection, subsequently reducing explantation and revision rates as well. The Coloplast Titan models are dipped into antimicrobial solutions right before implantation, and the components used for dipping can be tailored toward the patient. AIM:To compare infection, explantation, and revision rates among different dipping solutions used before implantation for patients with diabetes receiving a Coloplast Titan implant. METHODS:We systematically reviewed 932 patients with diabetes receiving a primary penile implant across 18 different centers from the period April 2003 to August 2018. Of those patients, 473 received a Coloplast device, whereas 459 received an AMS device. Data regarding the type of antimicrobial solution used before implantation were recorded for 468 patients receiving a Coloplast Titan, including whether or not they suffered a postoperative infection and if they underwent explantation and/or revision. Outcome rates were compared using Fisher's exact and Pearson's chi-square tests, and logistic regression modeling was performed to account for covariates. OUTCOMES:The main outcome measures of this study were postoperative infection, explantation, and revision rates. RESULTS:Of the total 932 patients reviewed, 33 suffered a postoperative infection. Of 468 patients receiving Coloplast implants, there was a 3.4% infection rate. The most commonly used antibiotic combination before dipping was vancomycin + gentamicin (59.0%). There was a significantly lower rate of postoperative infection, explantation, and revision when vancomycin + gentamicin was used than those associated with the use of all other dipping solutions ([1.4% vs 6.4%; P = .004], [1.1% vs 8.3%; P < .001], and [2.5% vs 12.5; P < .001], respectively). After adjusting for age, body mass index, preoperative blood glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c, the use of other dips was an independent predictor of postoperative infection (odds ratio: 0.191; P = .049). The inclusion of rifampin in the dipping solution trended toward being a significant risk factor for infection (P = .057). Including antifungals in the dipping solution did not affect infection (P = .414), explantation (P = .421), or revision (P = .328) rates. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:Vancomycin + gentamicin was the most efficacious combination of antibiotics used for dipping in terms of preventing postoperative infection and subsequent explantation and revision. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS:Data were sampled across multiple institutions providing a large sample that may be more representative of the population of interest. A key limitation of the study was its retrospective nature, which prevented us from controlling certain variables. CONCLUSION:The use of rifampin did not provide the same type of protection, possibly representing a shift in resistance patterns of common bacteria responsible for device infection. Towe M, Huynh LM, Osman MM, et al. Impact of Antimicrobial Dipping Solutions on Postoperative Infection Rates in Patients With Diabetes Undergoing Primary Insertion of a Coloplast Titan Inflatable Penile Prosthesis. J Sex Med 2020;17:2077-2083.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the number of PubMed-indexed research projects of medical students matching at top-ranked urology programs as compared to the average publications reported in the Electronic Residency Applicant Service (ERAS). METHODS:Doximity Residency Navigator was used to generate the top 50 residency programs when sorted by reputation. Residents were then found using program websites. PubMed was queried for peer-reviewed publications of incoming interns through post graduate year 3 residents as of February 2020. All PubMed-indexed research was recorded before September 15th of the residents' fourth year of medical school. We recorded the number of publications, first/last author publications, and urology-specific publications. RESULTS:The average number of publications across all 4 years was 2.38 ± 4.19. The average for urology-specific publications was 1.05 ± 3.19 and for first/last author publications was 0.80 ± 1.77. Most matched applicants had at least one PubMed-indexed publication (61.2%) and having over 3 placed them in the 75th percentile. It is uncommon for students to have urology specific or first/last author publications (34.0%, 36.5%). Top 10 programs matched applicants with significantly more research in each of the aforementioned categories and as program reputation declined, so did the publications of the applicants they matched. CONCLUSION:Most research that matched urology applicant's report in ERAS is not PubMed Indexed. Most had at least one PubMed-indexed publication by the time they submitted ERAS and those at top programs had more. It would be helpful to students and faculty advisors if ERAS published research metrics for matched and unmatched applicants separating PubMed-indexed work from posters and presentations.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Inadequate treatment of men with erectile dysfunction (ED) subjects them and their partners to lost quality of life, yet little is known about the cause and duration of symptoms that lead to penile prosthesis (PP) placement. AIM/OBJECTIVE:We performed a systematic review addressing cause and duration of symptoms before implantation. METHODS:We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for articles published between January 1, 1965-July 20, 2016, reporting on PP for ED. Studies were assessed for quality. Body of evidence strength was categorized in accordance to American Urological Association (AUA) categorization: grade A (well-conducted, highly-generalizable randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or exceptionally strong observational studies with consistent findings), grade B (RCTs with some weaknesses of procedure/generalizability or moderately strong observational studies with consistent findings), or grade C (RCTs with serious deficiencies of procedure/generalizability, have small sample sizes, or other problems that potentially confound interpretation). This review was performed as part of the 2018 AUA ED Clinical Guidelines, with the support of the AUA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Cause and duration of symptoms before PP were assessed. RESULTS:We reviewed 113 articles constituting 150 study arms. All studies were observational (body of evidence strength grade C). Of these arms, only 19 reported on ED duration. Mean duration was 56 months for men undergoing inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement (38.7 months for those after prostatectomy) and 72 months for those undergoing malleable penile prosthesis placement. Diabetic patients undergoing IPP had mean ED duration of 75 months. Among arms reporting on IPPs, causes of ED were vascular disease (47 arms; range 2.9-62.0%; mean 31.9%), diabetes (61 arms; range 12.8-77.8%; mean 28.3%), and pelvic surgery or trauma (49 arms; range 0.5-49.7%; mean 20.3%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Nearly all men undergoing PP have ED of organic causes, whereas diabetic patients and patients receiving malleable penile prosthesis have the longest ED duration. Factors driving this relative delay require additional investigation. Post-prostatectomy IPP placement is offered relatively late, on average. Bajic P, Mahon J, Faraday M, et al. Etiology of Erectile Dysfunction and Duration of Symptoms in Patients Undergoing Penile Prosthesis: A Systematic Review. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:333-337.

INTRODUCTION:Infection remains a prominent concern following penile implantation. Recognition of the risk factors for infection may help to guide surgeons toward reducing the risk of prosthetic contamination. AIM:To gain a further understanding of infectious adverse events following penile prosthesis, we performed a systematic literature review. METHODS:As part of the 2018 American Urological Association Erectile Dysfunction Clinical Guidelines and with the support of the American Urological Association, we performed a comprehensive review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to search for eligible articles published between January 1, 1965, and July 20, 2016, to identify articles reporting infectious adverse events following prosthesis placement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:The main outcome measure was infectious adverse events following penile prosthesis placement. RESULTS:Ninety-one articles reporting infectious adverse events representing 97 study arms were identified. Prosthetic infection rates ranged from 0% to 24.6% across all series. Inflatable penile prostheses displayed a wider range (0-24.6%) than malleable devices (0-9.1%); the most frequently reported infection rate for inflatable devices was 5% or less. With the advent of device coatings and improved surgical techniques, infectious adverse events have decreased. Infections among diabetic patients also decreased throughout the reviewed body of literature, with the most recent series reporting rates consistent with those of non-diabetic patients. Furthermore, no glycosylated hemoglobin cutoff was found to infer increased or decreased risk of prosthesis infection. CONCLUSION:Overall penile prosthetic infectious adverse events have decreased as surgical techniques have improved and the use of antimicrobial coating has gained in popularity. These advances have demonstrated significant benefits for all patients, particularly diabetic patients who experience infection rates similar to those of non-diabetic patients in recent reports. Further technological advancements for the prevention of biofilm formation is warranted. Mahon J, Dornbier R, Wegrzyn G, et al. Infectious Adverse Events Following the Placement of a Penile Prosthesis: A Systematic Review. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:348-354.