Banner

Defining a Hba1c Value That Predicts Increased Risk Of Penile Implant Infection

• 2017
Back
Publication Information
Authors Mohamad Habous1, Raanan Tal2,Tarek Soliman3 , Alaa Tealab4 Mohammed Nassar1,Zenhom Mekawi1 ,Saad Mahmoud1 ,Osama Abdelwahab3, ,Mohamed Elkhouly1 ,Hatem Kamr1 , Abdallah Remeah1,Saleh Binsaleh5, David Ralph6,and John Mulhall
Keywords infection, penile implants, Diabetes, HBA1c, predictors, penile prosthesis
Journal Not Available
Publisher Not Available
Volume Not Available
Issue Not Available
Pages Not Available
publication.type International
Paper Link Not Available
Supplementary Materials Not Available
Abstract
Objectives : To explore the association between HbA1C level and penile
implant infection rates and to define a cut-off value that predicted implant
infection.
Patients and Methods:A multi center prospective study included all patients
undergoing penile implant surgery between 2009-15. Preoperative,
perioperative and postoperative management were identical for the entire
cohort. Univariate analysis was performed to define predictors of implant
infection. HbA1c levels were analyzed as a continuous variable and
sequential analysis was conducted utilizing 0.5% increments to define a
cut-off level predicting implant infection. Multivariable analysis was
performed with the following factors entered the model: Diabetes, HbA1C
level, patient age, implant type, vascular risk factor number, presence of
Peyronie’s disease (PD), BMI and surgeon volume. A ROC curve was
generated to define the optimal HbA1C cut-off for infection prediction.
Results : 902 implant procedures were performed over this period of time.
The mean age was 56.6 years. The mean HbA1c level was 8.0, with 81%
of men having a HbA1c >6%. 685 (76%) implants were malleable, and
217 (24%) were inflatable devices. 302 (33.5%) patients had also a
diagnosis of PD. Overall infection rate was 8.9% (80/902 subjects).
BJU International
For Peer Review
Patients who had implant infection had significantly higher mean HbA1c
levels, 9.5% vs 7.8% (p