Does climate impact inflatable penile prosthesis infection (IPP) risk? Assessment of temperature and dew point on IPP infections.

climate erectile dysfunction infection inflatable penile prosthesis

Journal

The journal of sexual medicine
ISSN: 1743-6109
Titre abrégé: J Sex Med
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101230693

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 08 11 2023
revised: 12 01 2024
accepted: 22 01 2024
medline: 14 3 2024
pubmed: 14 3 2024
entrez: 14 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Variations in climate have been associated with a greater risk of surgical site infections, urinary tract infections, and changes in the skin microbiome; however, limited data exist on the impact of climate on inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infections. We sought to evaluate the impact of climate on the risk of IPP infections in a large international, multicenter cohort. We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients undergoing IPP surgery. We then evaluated whether the month or season, during which surgery was performed, affected device infections. Implant infections were defined as infections requiring device explantation. A univariate logistic regression analysis was undertaken. Our primary outcome was implant infection. A total of 5289 patients with a mean age of 62.2 ± 10.8 years received IPP placement. There was a fairly even distribution of implants performed in each season. A total of 103 (1.9%) infections were recorded. There were 32 (31.1%) IPP infections in patients who underwent surgery in the summer, followed by 28 (27.2%) in the winter, 26 (25.2%) in the spring, and 17 (16.5%) in the fall. No statistically significant differences were recorded in terms of season (P = .19) and month (P = .29). The mean daily temperature (P = .43), dew point (P = .43), and humidity (P = .92) at the time of IPP placement was not associated with infection. These findings provide reassurance to prosthetic urologists that infection reduction strategies do not need to be tailored to local climate. Climate data were not directly recorded for each hospital, but rather based on the monthly averages in the city where the surgery was performed. The climate at time of IPP placement and time of year of surgery is not associated with IPP infection risk.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Variations in climate have been associated with a greater risk of surgical site infections, urinary tract infections, and changes in the skin microbiome; however, limited data exist on the impact of climate on inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) infections.
AIM OBJECTIVE
We sought to evaluate the impact of climate on the risk of IPP infections in a large international, multicenter cohort.
METHODS METHODS
We performed a multi-institutional, retrospective study of patients undergoing IPP surgery. We then evaluated whether the month or season, during which surgery was performed, affected device infections. Implant infections were defined as infections requiring device explantation. A univariate logistic regression analysis was undertaken.
OUTCOMES RESULTS
Our primary outcome was implant infection.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 5289 patients with a mean age of 62.2 ± 10.8 years received IPP placement. There was a fairly even distribution of implants performed in each season. A total of 103 (1.9%) infections were recorded. There were 32 (31.1%) IPP infections in patients who underwent surgery in the summer, followed by 28 (27.2%) in the winter, 26 (25.2%) in the spring, and 17 (16.5%) in the fall. No statistically significant differences were recorded in terms of season (P = .19) and month (P = .29). The mean daily temperature (P = .43), dew point (P = .43), and humidity (P = .92) at the time of IPP placement was not associated with infection.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSIONS
These findings provide reassurance to prosthetic urologists that infection reduction strategies do not need to be tailored to local climate.
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS UNASSIGNED
Climate data were not directly recorded for each hospital, but rather based on the monthly averages in the city where the surgery was performed.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The climate at time of IPP placement and time of year of surgery is not associated with IPP infection risk.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38481017
pii: 7627955
doi: 10.1093/jsxmed/qdae023
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The International Society of Sexual Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Auteurs

David W Barham (DW)

Urology Section, Department of Surgery, Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX 78234, United States.

Nikolaos Pyrgidis (N)

Department of Urology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.

Eliad Amini (E)

Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92868, United States.

Muhammed Hammad (M)

Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92868, United States.

Jake Miller (J)

Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92868, United States.

Robert Andrianne (R)

Department of Urology, University Hospital of Liège, Liege, Belgium.

Arthur L Burnett (AL)

Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States.

Kelli Gross (K)

Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132, CA.

Georgios Hatzichristodoulou (G)

Department of Urology, Martha-Maria Hospital Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany.

James Hotaling (J)

Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132, CA.

Tung-Chin Hsieh (TC)

Department of Urology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA 92103, United States.

Lawrence C Jenkins (LC)

Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92868, United States.

James M Jones (JM)

Section of Urology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH 03766, United States.

Aaron Lentz (A)

Department of Urology, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, United States.

Vaibhav Modgil (V)

Manchester Andrology Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Daniar Osmonov (D)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.

Sung Hun Park (SH)

Sewum Prosthetic Urology, Seoul, South Korea.

Ian Pearce (I)

Manchester Andrology Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Paul Perito (P)

Perito Urology, Coral Gables, FL 33146, United States.

Hossein Sadeghi-Nejad (H)

Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY 10017, United States.

Maxime Sempels (M)

Department of Urology, University Hospital of Liège, Liege, Belgium.

Alfredo Suarez-Sarmiento (A)

Perito Urology, Coral Gables, FL 33146, United States.

Jay Simhan (J)

Department of Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, United States.

Koenraad van Renterghem (K)

Department of Urology, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium.

J Nicholas Warner (JN)

Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.

Matthew Ziegelmann (M)

Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, United States.

Faysal A Yafi (FA)

Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92868, United States.

Martin S Gross (MS)

Section of Urology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH 03766, United States.

Classifications MeSH