Cargando…

A scoping review of penile implant biofilms—what do we know and what remains unknown?

BACKGROUND: Penile prosthesis (PP) is a gold standard for treatment of erectile dysfunction given its reliability and efficacy. Infection remains the most feared complication of prosthetic surgery, which usually results in device removal, and places a significant economic burden on the healthcare sy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leong, Joon Yau, Capella, Courtney E., D’Amico, Maria J., Isguven, Selin, Purtill, Caroline, Machado, Priscilla, Delaney, Lauren J., Henry, Gerard D., Hickok, Noreen J., Forsberg, Flemming, Chung, Paul H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9459550/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36092843
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-22-195
_version_ 1784786537140977664
author Leong, Joon Yau
Capella, Courtney E.
D’Amico, Maria J.
Isguven, Selin
Purtill, Caroline
Machado, Priscilla
Delaney, Lauren J.
Henry, Gerard D.
Hickok, Noreen J.
Forsberg, Flemming
Chung, Paul H.
author_facet Leong, Joon Yau
Capella, Courtney E.
D’Amico, Maria J.
Isguven, Selin
Purtill, Caroline
Machado, Priscilla
Delaney, Lauren J.
Henry, Gerard D.
Hickok, Noreen J.
Forsberg, Flemming
Chung, Paul H.
author_sort Leong, Joon Yau
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Penile prosthesis (PP) is a gold standard for treatment of erectile dysfunction given its reliability and efficacy. Infection remains the most feared complication of prosthetic surgery, which usually results in device removal, and places a significant economic burden on the healthcare system. While biofilms have shown to support the persistence of microorganisms, the degree by which this matrix is truly pathogenic remains unknown given its high prevalence even in asymptomatic patients. We aim to review and summarize the current literature pertaining to biofilm formation in the setting of PP surgeries in clinically infected and non-infected cases. METHODS: Searches were performed in the MEDLINE online database through PubMed using a combination of keywords “penile prosthetic” OR “penile prosthesis” OR “penile implant” AND “biofilm” OR “revision” OR “removal” OR “infection” OR “explant”. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria. There were only three studies that explicitly listed the number of biofilms identified in their cohort, but we also included eight articles that mentioned swabbing and culturing of any bacterial biofilm during revision procedures for both clinically infected and non-infected implants. RESULTS: Infected PP yielded a 11–100% rate of biofilm presence, while non-infected PP yielded a 3–70% rate of biofilm presence. Time to reoperation from initial PP placement were also largely variable, ranging from 2 weeks to over 2 years. Coagulase-negative staphylococcus (i.e., Staphylococcus epidermidis) were the most commonly reported organisms among non-infected implants, however, newer studies have identified a change towards more virulent organisms. CONCLUSIONS: Since the advent of PP surgery, diabetes control, revision washout protocols and antibiotic-impregnated devices have led to an overall decrease in biofilm formation and infectious complications. There is an overall paradigm shift in microbial profiles with more virulent organisms, such as Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus species, and even fungal species beginning to replace the more common coagulase-negative staphylococcal species, especially in clinically infected implants. Additional studies are necessary to define the significance of bacterial presence in biofilms using impactful technologies such as next-generation sequencing. Currently, preliminary and experimental biofilm-control strategies are also underway to further address this clinical issue.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9459550
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94595502022-09-10 A scoping review of penile implant biofilms—what do we know and what remains unknown? Leong, Joon Yau Capella, Courtney E. D’Amico, Maria J. Isguven, Selin Purtill, Caroline Machado, Priscilla Delaney, Lauren J. Henry, Gerard D. Hickok, Noreen J. Forsberg, Flemming Chung, Paul H. Transl Androl Urol Review Article BACKGROUND: Penile prosthesis (PP) is a gold standard for treatment of erectile dysfunction given its reliability and efficacy. Infection remains the most feared complication of prosthetic surgery, which usually results in device removal, and places a significant economic burden on the healthcare system. While biofilms have shown to support the persistence of microorganisms, the degree by which this matrix is truly pathogenic remains unknown given its high prevalence even in asymptomatic patients. We aim to review and summarize the current literature pertaining to biofilm formation in the setting of PP surgeries in clinically infected and non-infected cases. METHODS: Searches were performed in the MEDLINE online database through PubMed using a combination of keywords “penile prosthetic” OR “penile prosthesis” OR “penile implant” AND “biofilm” OR “revision” OR “removal” OR “infection” OR “explant”. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria. There were only three studies that explicitly listed the number of biofilms identified in their cohort, but we also included eight articles that mentioned swabbing and culturing of any bacterial biofilm during revision procedures for both clinically infected and non-infected implants. RESULTS: Infected PP yielded a 11–100% rate of biofilm presence, while non-infected PP yielded a 3–70% rate of biofilm presence. Time to reoperation from initial PP placement were also largely variable, ranging from 2 weeks to over 2 years. Coagulase-negative staphylococcus (i.e., Staphylococcus epidermidis) were the most commonly reported organisms among non-infected implants, however, newer studies have identified a change towards more virulent organisms. CONCLUSIONS: Since the advent of PP surgery, diabetes control, revision washout protocols and antibiotic-impregnated devices have led to an overall decrease in biofilm formation and infectious complications. There is an overall paradigm shift in microbial profiles with more virulent organisms, such as Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus species, and even fungal species beginning to replace the more common coagulase-negative staphylococcal species, especially in clinically infected implants. Additional studies are necessary to define the significance of bacterial presence in biofilms using impactful technologies such as next-generation sequencing. Currently, preliminary and experimental biofilm-control strategies are also underway to further address this clinical issue. AME Publishing Company 2022-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9459550/ /pubmed/36092843 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-22-195 Text en 2022 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article
Leong, Joon Yau
Capella, Courtney E.
D’Amico, Maria J.
Isguven, Selin
Purtill, Caroline
Machado, Priscilla
Delaney, Lauren J.
Henry, Gerard D.
Hickok, Noreen J.
Forsberg, Flemming
Chung, Paul H.
A scoping review of penile implant biofilms—what do we know and what remains unknown?
title A scoping review of penile implant biofilms—what do we know and what remains unknown?
title_full A scoping review of penile implant biofilms—what do we know and what remains unknown?
title_fullStr A scoping review of penile implant biofilms—what do we know and what remains unknown?
title_full_unstemmed A scoping review of penile implant biofilms—what do we know and what remains unknown?
title_short A scoping review of penile implant biofilms—what do we know and what remains unknown?
title_sort scoping review of penile implant biofilms—what do we know and what remains unknown?
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9459550/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36092843
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-22-195
work_keys_str_mv AT leongjoonyau ascopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT capellacourtneye ascopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT damicomariaj ascopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT isguvenselin ascopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT purtillcaroline ascopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT machadopriscilla ascopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT delaneylaurenj ascopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT henrygerardd ascopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT hickoknoreenj ascopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT forsbergflemming ascopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT chungpaulh ascopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT leongjoonyau scopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT capellacourtneye scopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT damicomariaj scopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT isguvenselin scopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT purtillcaroline scopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT machadopriscilla scopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT delaneylaurenj scopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT henrygerardd scopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT hickoknoreenj scopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT forsbergflemming scopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown
AT chungpaulh scopingreviewofpenileimplantbiofilmswhatdoweknowandwhatremainsunknown