Scholarlink

<p>Our aim was to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing primary inflatable penile prosthesis with and without antibiotic coverage, determining infection rates and identifying the most effective prophylaxis to prevent infectious complications. We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and LILACS databases. The search and selection process followed PRISMA guidelines, and the selected studies were evaluated for quality using the ROBINS-I tool. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to filter the results, and a meta-analysis was later performed using the R Statistical Software. After removing duplicate studies, 50 studies were selected for full-text analysis, and 29 were included for further examination. Of those, 11 observational studies comprising 102,572 patients who underwent primary penile prosthesis implantation, with or without antibiotic-coated or non-coated prostheses, were included in the meta-analysis. Our analysis revealed a significant decline in infection rates among those using coated prostheses (HR = 0.38; CI 0.28 to 0.51; p &lt; 0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 85.5%). We also meta-analyzed studies comparing the two major prosthesis brands on the market, Boston Scientific and Coloplast, and found no difference in infection rates between them (HR = 1.02; CI 0.17 to 6.02; <i>p</i> = 0.98; I<sup>2</sup> = 88.7%). Antibiotic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis demonstrated a significant decline in infection rates compared to non-coated devices. These findings are based on observational studies, and further research is warranted to better understand the role of different prophylaxis strategies in preventing infections.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Infection rates in primary inflatable penile prosthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic-coated versus non-coated devices

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月20日

查看全文
  • Nilson Marquardt Filho,
  • Lucas Uglione Da Ros,
  • João Pedro Uglione Da Ros,
  • Gustavo Franco Carvalhal,
  • Carlos Teodósio Da Ros,
  • Alejandro Carvajal

摘要

Our aim was to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing primary inflatable penile prosthesis with and without antibiotic coverage, determining infection rates and identifying the most effective prophylaxis to prevent infectious complications. We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and LILACS databases. The search and selection process followed PRISMA guidelines, and the selected studies were evaluated for quality using the ROBINS-I tool. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to filter the results, and a meta-analysis was later performed using the R Statistical Software. After removing duplicate studies, 50 studies were selected for full-text analysis, and 29 were included for further examination. Of those, 11 observational studies comprising 102,572 patients who underwent primary penile prosthesis implantation, with or without antibiotic-coated or non-coated prostheses, were included in the meta-analysis. Our analysis revealed a significant decline in infection rates among those using coated prostheses (HR = 0.38; CI 0.28 to 0.51; p < 0.01; I2 = 85.5%). We also meta-analyzed studies comparing the two major prosthesis brands on the market, Boston Scientific and Coloplast, and found no difference in infection rates between them (HR = 1.02; CI 0.17 to 6.02; p = 0.98; I2 = 88.7%). Antibiotic-coated inflatable penile prosthesis demonstrated a significant decline in infection rates compared to non-coated devices. These findings are based on observational studies, and further research is warranted to better understand the role of different prophylaxis strategies in preventing infections.