Bacterial Cultures at the Time of Artificial Urinary Sphincter Revision Surgery in Clinically Uninfected Devices: A Contemporary Series.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the rate of bacterial colonization in artificial urinary sphincters during revision surgery for noninfectious etiologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated bacterial culture swab data on all explanted artificial urinary sphincter components (cuff, pump and reservoir) in patients who underwent revision surgery between February 2016 and July 2018. Those treated with revision for infection or erosion were excluded from study. Patient demographic variables were assessed to identify factors associated with colonization. RESULTS: Cultures were obtained from 200 components, including 86 cuffs, 56 pumps and 58 reservoirs among the total of 80 patients. The etiology of revision included urethral atrophy in 31 cases (39%) and mechanical failure in 49 (52%). Median time after prior artificial urinary sphincter placement was 4.3 years (IQR 2-9). Median operative time was 37.5 minutes (IQR 32-46). All components were explanted and replaced in 55 patients (69%) and a single component was replaced in 23 (28%). Positive culture swabs were identified in 37 of the 200 components (19%), including 25 of 86 cuffs (29%), 7 of 56 pumps (13%) and 5 of 58 reservoirs (9%). Of the 80 patients 31 (39%) had at least 1 positive component culture and were more likely to have a history of radiation (65% vs 33%, p = 0.006). Identified organisms included Staphylococcus species in 57% of cases, Propionibacterium in 10% and Aerococcus in 5%. CONCLUSIONS: Positive artificial urinary sphincter component bacterial swab cultures were found in 39% of patients undergoing artificial urinary sphincter revision in the absence of clinical infection. Those with positive cultures were more likely to have a history of pelvic radiation. These results suggest that bacterial colonization of organisms with low virulence may not lead to device infection.

Are Urine Cultures Necessary Prior to Urologic Prosthetic Surgery?

INTRODUCTION: A preoperative negative urine culture is generally advised before implantation of urologic prosthetics to prevent device infection. However, a review of the medical literature indicates sparse evidence to support this practice. AIM: To describe outcomes for patients undergoing prosthetic implantation without preoperative urine cultures. METHODS: The cases of men undergoing artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and/or inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement at a tertiary care center from 2007 through 2015 were reviewed. Of 713 devices implanted in 681 patients (337 AUSs in 314 patients, 376 IPPs in 367), 259 cases without preoperative urine cultures were analyzed (41%). Patients received standard perioperative antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Device infection was diagnosed clinically. Average follow-up was 15 months. RESULTS: Device infection occurred in 4 of 259 patients (1.5%) with no difference noted in infection rate between device groups (AUS = 3 of 174 [2%]; IPP = 1 of 85 [1%]; P = .99); this rate appears to be consistent with the infection rate of numerous other published prosthetic series. Common skin organisms were implicated as the infectious agents in half the infected devices. Only one patient (0.4%) developed an Escherichia coli infection. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that prosthetic urologic surgery can be safely performed without preoperative urine cultures. Kavoussi NL, Viers BR, Pagilara TL, et al. Are Urine Cultures Necessary Prior to Urologic Prosthetic Surgery? Sex Med Rev 2018;6:157-161.

Durability of Artificial Urinary Sphincter With Prior Radiation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of prior radiation therapy on artificial urinary sphincter. METHODS: Group 1 was comprised of 63 men who underwent prior radical prostatectomy, and Group 2 was comprised of 31 men who received prior radiation therapy with or without prior radical prostatectomy. Social incontinence was defined as requiring to use > 1 pad per day and/or catheter-dependent at the time of last follow-up. RESULTS: The median age at artificial urinary sphincter placement was 71 years (interquartile range, 55-74 years). The median and mean follow-up was 62 months (interquartile range, 37-106 months) and 75 months (range, 2-205 months), respectively. At the time of last follow-up, 67% (63 of 94) of the men in the entire cohort (73% [46 of 63] and 55% [17 of 31] in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively [P = .078]) were socially continent. Sphincter revision, erosion, infection, and removal rates were 20%, 20%, 7%, and 10%, respectively, in Group 1, and 26%, 13%, 7%, and 23%, respectively, in Group 2. The differences in these rates were not statistically significant between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in functionality (incontinence rates) and outcomes (rates of sphincter revision, erosion, infection, and removal) between the 2 groups. The message for patients is that prior radiation does not significantly alter the outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter.

AMS 800 artificial sphincter: an unusual case of circumscribed peritonitis due to prosthetic reservoir infection.

OBJECTIVES: Male urinary incontinence is nowadays a rare event in patients submitted to radical prostatectomy. In these cases, insertion on a hydraulic prosthesis is often the only therapeutical solution. Complications following this type of surgery are rare and when they occur, generally depend on the bacterial contamination of the device which will be "rejected". The cuff is generally the first cause of infection and its prompt removal should solve the problem in the majority of the cases. METHODS: Herein we report the case of a patient submitted to cuff removal three years earlier who consulted for a symptomless circumscribed peritonitis due to bacterial contamination of the intraperitoneal reservoir. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: This report emphasizes the need to re-examine the indications for intraperitoneal implantation of the reservoir. Moreover, in case of a three-component prosthetic device, the external components (pump, cylinders and/or cuff) should be removed in a single step, at the same time, in order to avoid future contamination of the internal components.