MP27-07 PENILE PROSTHESES UNIVERSALLY HARBOR BIOFILMS, AND COMPOSITION DIFFERS BY DEVICE TYPE, BUT NOT COMPONENT OR INFECTION STATUS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP27-07 PENILE PROSTHESES UNIVERSALLY HARBOR BIOFILMS, AND COMPOSITION DIFFERS BY DEVICE TYPE, BUT NOT COMPONENT OR INFECTION STATUS Glenn Werneburg, Ava Adler, Prajit Khooblall, Hadley Wood, Bradley Gill, Sarah Vij, Kenneth Angermeier, Scott Lundy, Aaron Miller, and Petar Bajic Glenn WerneburgGlenn Werneburg More articles by this author , Ava AdlerAva Adler More articles by this author , Prajit KhooblallPrajit Khooblall More articles by this author , Hadley WoodHadley Wood More articles by this author , Bradley GillBradley Gill More articles by this author , Sarah VijSarah Vij More articles by this author , Kenneth AngermeierKenneth Angermeier More articles by this author , Scott LundyScott Lundy More articles by this author , Aaron MillerAaron Miller More articles by this author , and Petar BajicPetar Bajic More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003255.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: To characterize microbial biofilms of indwelling penile prostheses by device component, manufacturer and infection status. Understanding biofilms in the presence and absence of infection will guide development of novel materials and coatings resistant to pathogenic biofilm formation – improving strategies for the prevention and treatment of device infection. METHODS: Penile prosthetic devices were removed in 20 patients having mechanical failure, pain, or infection. Device components were subjected to sonication, DNA extraction, next generation sequencing, shotgun metagenomics, and culture-based approaches. Curated reads were compared to known bacterial, viral, fungal, and protozoal databases, then mapped to KEGG and antibiotic resistance gene databases. RESULTS: Biofilms were detected in all 102 prosthetic components. 65% of species were prokaryotic, 15% viral, 15% protozoan, and 0% fungal in origin. Beta-diversity of prokaryotes and viruses did not differ by infection status or device component, but differed by device type (p<0.05) (Figure 1). The most abundant bacterial phyla were Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria. Mobiluncus curtisii was enriched in Manufacturer A (M.A.) device biofilms relative to Manufacturer B (M.B.). Bordetella bronchialis and Methylomicrobium alcaliphilum were enriched in M.B. relative to M.A. devices. The most abundant viruses across device components were the bean 58058 virus and cotesia congregate virus. The angelica virus and magnaporthe oryzae chrisovirus were enriched in M.B. relative to M.A. devices. CONCLUSIONS: Penile prostheses harbored biofilms regardless of device component and infection status (Figure 2). The significance of biofilm differences based on device type remains unknown. Stable, non-pathogenic biofilms may inhibit pathogenic infection and further investigation is needed into prevention of the transition to a state of dysbiosis. Source of Funding: This study was funded by the 2020 Sexual Medicine Society of North America Young Clinicians Research Grant © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e364 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Glenn Werneburg More articles by this author Ava Adler More articles by this author Prajit Khooblall More articles by this author Hadley Wood More articles by this author Bradley Gill More articles by this author Sarah Vij More articles by this author Kenneth Angermeier More articles by this author Scott Lundy More articles by this author Aaron Miller More articles by this author Petar Bajic More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...