Faculty Bibliography

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.

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: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.