LAUSR

INTRODUCTION Although infection rates have decreased with the use of antibiotic-coated implants and other enhancements, the risk of infection is still considered a serious concern in penile implant revision surgeries. AIM To review the literature for advances made in inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) revision surgery and organisms found at the time of revision, the significance of biofilm in prosthetic infection, and the bacteriology of infection. METHODS PubMed was reviewed for articles spanning the past three decades that discussed micro-organisms and biofilm in relation to penile implant revision surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES All articles were reviewed for evidence of bacteria found at revision IPP surgeries and any improvements made in surgical techniques and prosthesis enhancements. RESULTS During the period examined, several improvements have lowered the rate of infection in penile implant surgery: notably, antibiotic-coated IPPs, revision washout, and alcohol-based skin preparations. The biofilm composition on clinically uninfected and infected IPPs appears to have changed over time. The abundance of staphylococcal species-particularly coagulase-negative organisms-in positive cultures has decreased in infected implants, and clinically uninfected implants also have shown a decrease in the proportion of staphylococcal species. Conversely, other isolates such as fungi, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus species have increased in clinically uninfected and infected implants, and there has been an overall increase in unique isolates that form the biofilm. CONCLUSION A multitude of enhancements has decreased the presence of micro-organisms and the subsequent formation of biofilm. Nevertheless, the formation of biofilm on penile implants has been noted more frequently in the past decade, and the microbial composition of biofilms seems to be changing. Dawn LE, Henry GD, Tan GK, Wilson SK. Biofilm and Infectious Agents Present at the Time of Penile Prosthesis Revision Surgery: Times Are a Changing. Sex Med Rev 2017;5:236-243.