Risk factors for penile prosthesis infection: An umbrella review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.3 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY

Arab Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2023-07-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1080/2090598X.2023.2242204

Konstantin Menshchikov, Mikhail Menshchikov, Dmitry Yurasov, Anton Artamonov

{"title":"Risk factors for penile prosthesis infection: An umbrella review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Konstantin Menshchikov, Mikhail Menshchikov, Dmitry Yurasov, Anton Artamonov","doi":"10.1080/2090598X.2023.2242204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: As available data on implantation-related infections is contradictory, the aim was to identify the predictors of penile prosthesis infection.Methods: We performed an umbrella review and meta-analysis including systematic reviews with extractable data. Literature search was done in two databases: PubMed and Google Scholar. The participants were males with erectile dysfunction regardless of etiology who underwent penile implant surgery. Using a standardized form, three trained researchers reviewed each reference (systematic review) by title and abstract. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 (RevMan® 5.4.1).Results: A total of 78 systematic reviews were identified with the search strategies. Of these, 35 duplicates were removed. Thirty-seven full-text reviews were then excluded after revision. Six systematic reviews with a total of 271,226 patients (156,553 patients in the study group and 114,673 patients in the control group) were included in the meta-analysis. The analysis identified various predictors of adverse outcomes (infection). Among them were glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and different characteristics of penile implants.Conclusions: The systematic review and meta-analysis revealed significant risk factors/predictors of penile prosthesis infection: glycated hemoglobin levels; reoperation, and two predictors associated with the type of penile prosthesis. The weighted mean HbA1c levels of patients with and without infections were 8.37% and 7.17% respectively. The OR was as follows: first surgery/revision OR 0.36 (95% CI 0.29-0.45); antibiotic-coated/non-coated prosthesis OR 0.47 (95% CI 0.31-0.72); malleable/inflatable prosthesis OR 3.51 (95% CI 1.41-8.74).","PeriodicalId":8113,"journal":{"name":"Arab Journal of Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10929667/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arab Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2023.2242204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: As available data on implantation-related infections is contradictory, the aim was to identify the predictors of penile prosthesis infection.

Methods: We performed an umbrella review and meta-analysis including systematic reviews with extractable data. Literature search was done in two databases: PubMed and Google Scholar. The participants were males with erectile dysfunction regardless of etiology who underwent penile implant surgery. Using a standardized form, three trained researchers reviewed each reference (systematic review) by title and abstract. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 (RevMan® 5.4.1).

Results: A total of 78 systematic reviews were identified with the search strategies. Of these, 35 duplicates were removed. Thirty-seven full-text reviews were then excluded after revision. Six systematic reviews with a total of 271,226 patients (156,553 patients in the study group and 114,673 patients in the control group) were included in the meta-analysis. The analysis identified various predictors of adverse outcomes (infection). Among them were glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and different characteristics of penile implants.

Conclusions: The systematic review and meta-analysis revealed significant risk factors/predictors of penile prosthesis infection: glycated hemoglobin levels; reoperation, and two predictors associated with the type of penile prosthesis. The weighted mean HbA1c levels of patients with and without infections were 8.37% and 7.17% respectively. The OR was as follows: first surgery/revision OR 0.36 (95% CI 0.29-0.45); antibiotic-coated/non-coated prosthesis OR 0.47 (95% CI 0.31-0.72); malleable/inflatable prosthesis OR 3.51 (95% CI 1.41-8.74).

查看原文本刊更多论文

阴茎假体感染的危险因素:综述和荟萃分析

背景：关于植入相关感染的现有数据相互矛盾，因此我们的目的是确定阴茎假体感染的预测因素：我们进行了总括性综述和荟萃分析，包括可提取数据的系统性综述。我们在两个数据库中进行了文献检索：PubMed和谷歌学术。参与者为接受阴茎植入手术的勃起功能障碍男性，病因不限。三名训练有素的研究人员使用标准表格对每篇参考文献（系统综述）的标题和摘要进行了审查。使用Review Manager 5.4.1 (RevMan® 5.4.1)进行荟萃分析：结果：通过检索策略共发现 78 篇系统综述。其中删除了 35 篇重复内容。经修订后，37 篇全文综述被排除在外。荟萃分析纳入了六篇系统综述，共计 271,226 名患者（研究组 156,553 名患者，对照组 114,673 名患者）。分析确定了不良结果（感染）的各种预测因素。其中包括糖化血红蛋白（HbA1c）和阴茎植入物的不同特征：系统综述和荟萃分析揭示了阴茎假体感染的重要风险因素/预测因子：糖化血红蛋白水平、再次手术以及与阴茎假体类型相关的两个预测因子。感染和未感染患者的加权平均 HbA1c 水平分别为 8.37% 和 7.17%。OR值如下：首次手术/再次手术OR值为0.36（95% CI为0.29-0.45）；抗生素涂层/无涂层假体OR值为0.47（95% CI为0.31-0.72）；可弯曲/可充气假体OR值为3.51（95% CI为1.41-8.74）。

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

Arab Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-

CiteScore

2.80

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Arab Journal of Urology is a peer-reviewed journal that strives to provide a high standard of research and clinical material to the widest possible urological community worldwide. The journal encompasses all aspects of urology including: urological oncology, urological reconstructive surgery, urodynamics, female urology, pediatric urology, endourology, transplantation, erectile dysfunction, and urinary infections and inflammations. The journal provides reviews, original articles, editorials, surgical techniques, cases reports and correspondence. Urologists, oncologists, pathologists, radiologists and scientists are invited to submit their contributions to make the Arab Journal of Urology a viable international forum for the practical, timely and state-of-the-art clinical urology and basic urological research.