4.2 Review

Infection of Penile Prostheses in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus

期刊

SURGICAL INFECTIONS
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 2-8

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/sur.2015.164

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Controversy still exists in some centers on whether diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for penile prosthesis infection. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence correlating penile implant infections to the presence of diabetes mellitus in patients with organic erectile dysfunction. Methods: We performed a systematic review searching through Medline database from 1960 to 2014, using keywords; penile prosthesis(es), penile implant(s), and diabetes mellitus. We used the Prisma 2009 Flow diagram for systematic reviews. Thirty-eight publications were selected for inclusion in this qualitative analysis. Results: Most case series reporting a greater infection rate in patients with diabetes mellitus date from the 1970s to 1990s. These series reported an infection rate of 5.5 to 20% and contained small cohort of patients. In the 1990s larger case series reported a lower infection rate in patients with diabetes mellitus compared with patients with paraplegia, pelvic trauma, and patients on steroids, but still reported an infection rate as high as 10.6%. With the implementation of antibiotic coated implants in 2001, infection rates reduced further with reported rates becoming less than 2% in patients with diabetes mellitus. The latest and largest case series by Eid et al. (2012) reported an infection rate of 0.46% with antibiotic coated implants and no touch technique in a cohort of 1511 cases, out of which 41% were patients with diabetes mellitus. Conclusion: Strong evidence exists that the risk of penile prosthesis infection has reduced over the decades with device improvement and surgical expertise. In larger case series infection rates in patients with diabetes mellitus is not statistically significant from that experiences in the population at large.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据