Skip to main content

Infection rates following urologic prosthetic revision without replacement of any device components compared to partial or complete device exchange: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Campbell, SP; Kim, CJ; Allkanjari, A; Aksenov, LI; Dionise, ZR; Inouye, BM; Lentz, AC
Published in: Int J Impot Res
December 2023

Urologic implant revision carries a higher infection risk than virgin implantation. Historically, exchanging device components at the time of revision was performed to reduce infection risk. We hypothesize that revision without replacement of any parts of the device may not be associated with increased infection risk. A single-center, retrospective cohort study was performed on patients undergoing urologic implant revision from 2000 to 2021. Revisions involving exchange of any/all device components (+CE) were compared to revisions without exchange of any components (-CE). The primary outcome was infection or erosion within 12 weeks of revision. Infection rates were compared using Fischer exact test. Infection-free survival (IFS) was compared with Kaplan-Meier (KM) log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model. 551 revisions were included, including 497 revisions with CE and 54 without CE. Among those with at least 12 weeks follow-up, no difference was seen in infection rates within 12 weeks of revision [-CE 3/39 (7.7%) vs. +CE 10/383 (2.6%)], p = 0.109). In addition, IFS was comparable between groups (log-rank test p = 0.22, HR for -CE 1.65 (0.65-4.21). Revision surgery for IPP or AUS without CE may not present an elevated risk of infection in the properly selected patient.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

Int J Impot Res

DOI

EISSN

1476-5489

Publication Date

December 2023

Volume

35

Issue

8

Start / End Page

725 / 730

Location

England

Related Subject Headings

  • Treatment Outcome
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Reoperation
  • Prosthesis Failure
  • Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine
  • Humans
  • 5203 Clinical and health psychology
  • 3202 Clinical sciences
  • 1701 Psychology
  • 1103 Clinical Sciences
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Campbell, S. P., Kim, C. J., Allkanjari, A., Aksenov, L. I., Dionise, Z. R., Inouye, B. M., & Lentz, A. C. (2023). Infection rates following urologic prosthetic revision without replacement of any device components compared to partial or complete device exchange: a single-center retrospective cohort study. Int J Impot Res, 35(8), 725–730. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00616-x
Campbell, Scott P., Chris J. Kim, Armand Allkanjari, Leonid I. Aksenov, Zachary R. Dionise, Brian M. Inouye, and Aaron C. Lentz. “Infection rates following urologic prosthetic revision without replacement of any device components compared to partial or complete device exchange: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Int J Impot Res 35, no. 8 (December 2023): 725–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00616-x.
Campbell, Scott P., et al. “Infection rates following urologic prosthetic revision without replacement of any device components compared to partial or complete device exchange: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Int J Impot Res, vol. 35, no. 8, Dec. 2023, pp. 725–30. Pubmed, doi:10.1038/s41443-022-00616-x.

Published In

Int J Impot Res

DOI

EISSN

1476-5489

Publication Date

December 2023

Volume

35

Issue

8

Start / End Page

725 / 730

Location

England

Related Subject Headings

  • Treatment Outcome
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Reoperation
  • Prosthesis Failure
  • Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine
  • Humans
  • 5203 Clinical and health psychology
  • 3202 Clinical sciences
  • 1701 Psychology
  • 1103 Clinical Sciences