Contemporary Microbial Profile of Artificial Urinary Sphincter Erosions.

IF 1.6 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Urology Practice Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2026-06-09 DOI:10.1097/UPJ.0000000000001035
Ming-Yeah Y Hu, Thomas Schroeder, Brent Nosé, Mariela Martinez, Kiran Sury, Aaron C Lentz, Andrew C Peterson, Jordan R Foreman
{"title":"Contemporary Microbial Profile of Artificial Urinary Sphincter Erosions.","authors":"Ming-Yeah Y Hu, Thomas Schroeder, Brent Nosé, Mariela Martinez, Kiran Sury, Aaron C Lentz, Andrew C Peterson, Jordan R Foreman","doi":"10.1097/UPJ.0000000000001035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There is a dearth of data for artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) erosions after the introduction of InhibiZone-coated devices in 2008. We aim to identify common organisms associated with noninfected and infected AUS device erosions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed our prospectively collected, institutionally approved quality improvement database of AUS implantations, removals, or revisions performed at our facility. Devices implanted after 2008 that subsequently eroded were included for review. Erosion was confirmed cystoscopically in all cases. Urine cultures and intraoperative cultures (tissue, aspirate, or swab) were reviewed. Descriptive analyses of clinical and culture data were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We performed 1104 AUS cases between 2008 and 2022 and identified 80 (7.2%) erosions of InhibiZone-coated AUS devices in 67 patients. Median time to erosion was 10.5 months (IQR 3-29). Forty-nine patients (73%) received prior pelvic radiation. Sixty-seven (84%) erosion cases had urine cultures, and 36 (45%) had intraoperative cultures available for review. Of the 47 (70%) positive urine cultures, the most common results were mixed flora (36%), <i>Escherichia c</i><i>oli (7%)</i>, and <i>Klebsiella (7%)</i>. Top isolates from the 26 (72%) positive intraoperative cultures were <i>Staphylococcus</i> species (14%) and <i>Pseudomonas (14%)</i>, <i>followed by E</i> <i>c</i><i>oli</i> (11%), <i>Candida</i> (11%), and <i>Klebsiella</i> (11%). Positive intraoperative cultures isolated more gram-negative organisms (47%) than gram-positive organisms (38%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>InhibiZone-coated AUS device erosions were associated with a wide variety of organisms, including gram-positive, gram-negative, and fungal species. This can help guide modern antimicrobial prophylaxis practices and empiric treatment pathways in the eroded patient.</p>","PeriodicalId":45220,"journal":{"name":"Urology Practice","volume":" ","pages":"544-550"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000001035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: There is a dearth of data for artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) erosions after the introduction of InhibiZone-coated devices in 2008. We aim to identify common organisms associated with noninfected and infected AUS device erosions.

Methods: We reviewed our prospectively collected, institutionally approved quality improvement database of AUS implantations, removals, or revisions performed at our facility. Devices implanted after 2008 that subsequently eroded were included for review. Erosion was confirmed cystoscopically in all cases. Urine cultures and intraoperative cultures (tissue, aspirate, or swab) were reviewed. Descriptive analyses of clinical and culture data were performed.

Results: We performed 1104 AUS cases between 2008 and 2022 and identified 80 (7.2%) erosions of InhibiZone-coated AUS devices in 67 patients. Median time to erosion was 10.5 months (IQR 3-29). Forty-nine patients (73%) received prior pelvic radiation. Sixty-seven (84%) erosion cases had urine cultures, and 36 (45%) had intraoperative cultures available for review. Of the 47 (70%) positive urine cultures, the most common results were mixed flora (36%), Escherichia coli (7%), and Klebsiella (7%). Top isolates from the 26 (72%) positive intraoperative cultures were Staphylococcus species (14%) and Pseudomonas (14%), followed by E coli (11%), Candida (11%), and Klebsiella (11%). Positive intraoperative cultures isolated more gram-negative organisms (47%) than gram-positive organisms (38%).

Conclusions: InhibiZone-coated AUS device erosions were associated with a wide variety of organisms, including gram-positive, gram-negative, and fungal species. This can help guide modern antimicrobial prophylaxis practices and empiric treatment pathways in the eroded patient.

人工尿括约肌侵蚀的当代微生物特征。
目的:2008年引入inhibizone包被装置后,人工尿括约肌(AUS)侵蚀的数据缺乏。我们的目标是确定与非感染和感染AUS设备侵蚀相关的常见生物体。材料和方法:我们回顾了我们前瞻性收集的、机构批准的AUS植入、移除或修改的质量改进数据库。2008年以后植入的设备随后被腐蚀,纳入审查范围。所有病例均经膀胱镜检查证实糜烂。回顾了尿培养和术中培养(组织培养、抽吸培养或拭子培养)。对临床和培养数据进行描述性分析。结果:我们在2008年至2022年期间进行了1104例AUS手术,在67例患者中发现了80例(7.2%)的inhibizon涂层AUS装置糜烂。发生糜烂的中位时间为10.5个月(IQR 3-29)。49例患者(73%)既往接受盆腔放疗。67例(84%)糜烂患者进行了尿液培养,36例(45%)进行了术中培养。在47例(70%)阳性尿培养中,最常见的结果是混合菌群(36%)、大肠杆菌(7%)和克雷伯氏菌(7%)。术中26例(72%)阳性培养中分离最多的是葡萄球菌(14%)和假单胞菌(14%),其次是大肠杆菌(11%)、念珠菌(11%)和克雷伯氏菌(11%)。术中培养阳性的革兰氏阴性菌(47%)多于革兰氏阳性菌(38%)。结论:抑制比松包被的AUS装置糜烂与多种生物有关,包括革兰氏阳性、革兰氏阴性和真菌物种。这可以帮助指导现代抗微生物预防实践和经验治疗途径的侵蚀病人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urology Practice
Urology Practice UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
163
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书