Risk factors for penile prosthesis infection: An umbrella review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Background

As available data on implantation-related infections is contradictory, the aim was to identify the predictors of penile prosthesis infection.

Methods

We performed an umbrella review and meta-analysis including systematic reviews with extractable data. Literature search was done in two databases: PubMed and Google Scholar. The participants were males with erectile dysfunction regardless of etiology who underwent penile implant surgery. Using a standardized form, three trained researchers reviewed each reference (systematic review) by title and abstract. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 (RevMan® 5.4.1).

Results

A total of 78 systematic reviews were identified with the search strategies. Of these, 35 duplicates were removed. Thirty-seven full-text reviews were then excluded after revision. Six systematic reviews with a total of 271,226 patients (156,553 patients in the study group and 114,673 patients in the control group) were included in the meta-analysis. The analysis identified various predictors of adverse outcomes (infection). Among them were glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and different characteristics of penile implants.

Conclusions

The systematic review and meta-analysis revealed significant risk factors/predictors of penile prosthesis infection: glycated hemoglobin levels; reoperation, and two predictors associated with the type of penile prosthesis. The weighted mean HbA1c levels of patients with and without infections were 8.37% and 7.17% respectively. The OR was as follows: first surgery/revision OR 0.36 (95% CI 0.29–0.45); antibiotic-coated/non-coated prosthesis OR 0.47 (95% CI 0.31–0.72); malleable/inflatable prosthesis OR 3.51 (95% CI 1.41–8.74).

KEYWORDS:

• penile prosthesis infection
• diabetes mellitus
• glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)
• antibiotic-coated
• type of penile prosthesis

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2023.2242204