Urologia internationalis · 2022
Is There a Role for Antifungal Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Penile Prosthesis Surgery? A Systematic Review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Siddiqui Zain, Pearce Ian, Modgil Vaibhav
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to review the literature on the use of antifungal prophylaxis in penile prosthesis (PP) surgery and provide a summary on its efficacy as an adjunct to current prophylactic regimes in patients undergoing PP surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched up to May 2020. All included studies were analysed and the information extracted included author, title of study, year of publication, type of study, journal of publication, and main findings regarding post PP implantation fungal infections.
RESULTS: Nine relevant studies were included in this review, comprising retrospective single-centre studies and retrospective multicentre studies ranging from 2017 to 2020. Fungal infections were found responsible for 11.1% of all PP infections, with a greater risk in patients with diabetes, obesity, and from warmer climates. Current American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU) prophylaxis guidelines do not incorporate the use of antifungals. Trials of antifungal prophylaxis regimes combined with antibiotic prophylaxis have demonstrated a reduction in PP fungal infections.
CONCLUSIONS: Fungal infections represent a significant proportion of implant infections and therefore antifungal prophylaxis is warranted. Future studies comparing the efficacy of traditional antibiotic prophylaxis as set out by AUA/EAU with novel prophylaxis regimes including the addition of an antifungal may provide more definitive guidance on this issue. Until then antifungal prophylaxis in all patients undergoing PP procedures may provide a significant cost-effect benefit.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched up to May 2020. All included studies were analysed and the information extracted included author, title of study, year of publication, type of study, journal of publication, and main findings regarding post PP implantation fungal infections.
RESULTS: Nine relevant studies were included in this review, comprising retrospective single-centre studies and retrospective multicentre studies ranging from 2017 to 2020. Fungal infections were found responsible for 11.1% of all PP infections, with a greater risk in patients with diabetes, obesity, and from warmer climates. Current American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU) prophylaxis guidelines do not incorporate the use of antifungals. Trials of antifungal prophylaxis regimes combined with antibiotic prophylaxis have demonstrated a reduction in PP fungal infections.
CONCLUSIONS: Fungal infections represent a significant proportion of implant infections and therefore antifungal prophylaxis is warranted. Future studies comparing the efficacy of traditional antibiotic prophylaxis as set out by AUA/EAU with novel prophylaxis regimes including the addition of an antifungal may provide more definitive guidance on this issue. Until then antifungal prophylaxis in all patients undergoing PP procedures may provide a significant cost-effect benefit.