MP57-06 THE URETHRAL MICROBIOME DURING INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHESIS PLACEMENT

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Surgical Therapy (MP57)1 Sep 2021MP57-06 THE URETHRAL MICROBIOME DURING INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHESIS PLACEMENT John Williams, Hayden Hill, Eric Wendel, and Eric Laborde John Williams John Williams More articles by this author , Hayden HillHayden Hill More articles by this author , Eric WendelEric Wendel More articles by this author , and Eric LabordeEric Laborde More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002087.06AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Foley catheter placement prior to inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation permits drainage of the bladder to ensure safe retropubic reservoir placement and allows for palpation of the urethra to prevent inadvertent injury. The urethra is often colonized with commensal organisms mostly concentrated at the meatus and fossa navicularis to which the Foley catheter is exposed during placement. Following placement, the catheter remains on the sterile field during surgery. We sought to investigate if the microbiome of the urethra could contaminate the Foley catheter during IPP placement. METHODS: Data was retrospectively reviewed on all patients who underwent three-piece IPP placement at a single institution from 2/2020 to 2/2021. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and comorbidities were recorded. Culture swabs from the fossa navicularis and exposed Foley catheter were collected intra-operatively after Foley catheter placement. Growth of aerobic, anaerobic, and fungal organisms was assessed. Univariate analyses with chi-square tests were performed to compare baseline demographic and clinical data with isolation of organisms from culture swabs. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were included in this study. All surgeries were performed via penoscrotal approach by a single surgeon. 20% (n=8) were revision procedures, all of which were due to mechanical device malfunction. The mean age of our cohort was 65 years (range: 42-78 years) and 35% (n=14) had a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or greater. Three patients (8%) were current smokers and 48% (n=19) were diabetic. Two patients (5%) had isolation of aerobic organisms and five patients (13%) had isolation of anaerobic organisms. No patients had isolation of fungal organisms. There was no statistically significant relationship between obese BMI, diabetes diagnosis, or current smoking and the isolation of organisms. No patients have currently shown evidence of device infection. CONCLUSIONS: A number of patients had isolation of aerobic and anaerobic organisms from their intra-operatively collected cultures. This is the first study to examine the urethral microbiome and its potential effect on Foley catheter contamination at the time of IPP placement. Further study is needed to determine if this could be a significant source of device infection. Source of Funding: N/A © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e980-e980 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information John Williams More articles by this author Hayden Hill More articles by this author Eric Wendel More articles by this author Eric Laborde More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...