-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Urinary catheterisation is a common procedure, with approximately 15% to 25% of all people admitted to hospital receiving short-term (14 days or less) indwelling... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Urinary catheterisation is a common procedure, with approximately 15% to 25% of all people admitted to hospital receiving short-term (14 days or less) indwelling urethral catheterisation at some point during their care. However, the use of urinary catheters is associated with an increased risk of developing urinary tract infection. Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections. It is estimated that around 20% of hospital-acquired bacteraemias arise from the urinary tract and are associated with mortality of around 10%. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and last published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of strategies for removing short-term (14 days or less) indwelling catheters in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 17 March 2020), and reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of practices undertaken for the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters in adults for any reason in any setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors performed abstract and full-text screening of all relevant articles. At least two review authors independently performed risk of bias assessment, data abstraction and GRADE assessment.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 99 trials involving 12,241 participants. We judged the majority of trials to be at low or unclear risk of selection and detection bias, with a high risk of performance bias. We also deemed most trials to be at low risk of attrition and reporting bias. None of the trials reported on quality of life. The majority of participants across the trials had undergone some form of surgical procedure. Thirteen trials involving 1506 participants compared the removal of short-term indwelling urethral catheters at one time of day (early morning removal group between 6 am to 7 am) versus another (late night removal group between 10 pm to midnight). Catheter removal late at night may slightly reduce the risk of requiring recatheterisation compared with early morning (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; 10 RCTs, 1920 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference between early morning and late night removal in the risk of developing symptomatic CAUTI (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1 RCT, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the time of day makes a difference to the risk of dysuria (RR 2.20; 95% CI 0.70 to 6.86; 1 RCT, 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sixty-eight trials involving 9247 participants compared shorter versus longer durations of catheterisation. Shorter durations may increase the risk of requiring recatheterisation compared with longer durations (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.41; 44 trials, 5870 participants; low-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.61; 41 RCTs, 5759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of dysuria (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; 7 RCTs; 1398 participants; low-certainty evidence). Seven trials involving 714 participants compared policies of clamping catheters versus free drainage. There may be little to no difference between clamping and free drainage in terms of the risk of requiring recatheterisation (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.21; 5 RCTs; 569 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference in the risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 267 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or dysuria (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.54; 1 trial, 79 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three trials involving 402 participants compared the use of prophylactic alpha blockers versus no intervention or placebo. We are uncertain if prophylactic alpha blockers before catheter removal has any effect on the risk of requiring recatheterisation (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.42; 2 RCTs, 184 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or risk of symptomatic CAUTI (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; 1 trial, 94 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials investigating prophylactic alpha blockers reported the number of participants with dysuria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence to suggest the removal of indwelling urethral catheters late at night rather than early in the morning may reduce the number of people who require recatheterisation. It appears that catheter removal after shorter compared to longer durations probably reduces the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and may reduce the risk of dysuria. However, it may lead to more people requiring recatheterisation. The other evidence relating to the risk of symptomatic CAUTI and dysuria is too uncertain to allow us to draw any conclusions. Due to the low certainty of the majority of the evidence presented here, the results of further research are likely to change our findings and to have a further impact on clinical practice. This systematic review has highlighted the need for a standardised set of core outcomes, which should be measured and reported by all future trials comparing strategies for the removal of short-term urinary catheters. Future trials should also study the effects of short-term indwelling urethral catheter removal on non-surgical patients.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheters, Indwelling; Device Removal; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Urethra; Urinary Catheterization; Urinary Tract Infections; Urination
PubMed: 34184246
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004011.pub4 -
Neurourology and Urodynamics Feb 2020To systematically compare the impact of catheter-based bladder drainage methods on the rate of urinary tract infections (UTIs) amongst patients with neurogenic bladder.
AIMS
To systematically compare the impact of catheter-based bladder drainage methods on the rate of urinary tract infections (UTIs) amongst patients with neurogenic bladder.
METHODS
A search of Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, and Grey literature to February 2019 was performed using methods prepublished on PROSPERO. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. Eligible studies were published in English and compared UTI incidence between neurogenic bladder patients utilizing bladder drainage methods of the indwelling urethral catheter (IUC), suprapubic catheter (SPC) or intermittent self-catheterization (ISC). The odds ratio of UTI was the sole outcome of interest.
RESULTS
Eight nonrandomized observational cohort studies were identified, totaling 2321 patients who utilized either IUC, SPC, or ISC. Studies enrolled patients with neurogenic bladder due to spinal cord injury (seven studies) or from any cause (one study). UTI rates were compared between patients utilizing IUC vs SPC (four studies), IUC vs ISC (six studies), and SPC vs ISC (four studies). Compared with IUC, five of six studies suggested ISC use was associated with lower rates of UTI. Studies comparing IUC vs SPC and SPC vs ISC gave mixed results. Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to study methodology heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
Low-level evidence suggests amongst patients with neurogenic bladder requiring catheter-based drainage, the use of ISC is associated with lower rates of UTI than IUC. Comparisons of IUC vs SPC and SPC vs ISC gave mixed results. Future randomized trials are required to confirm these findings.
Topics: Catheters, Indwelling; Cohort Studies; Cystostomy; Drainage; Humans; Incidence; Odds Ratio; Research Design; Self Care; Spinal Cord Injuries; Urethra; Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic; Urinary Catheterization; Urinary Catheters; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 31845396
DOI: 10.1002/nau.24253 -
Reviews in Medical Virology Jul 2023Little is known about the ongoing monkeypox (mpox) outbreak, and the clinical features of mpox in patients worldwide have not been rigorously analysed. Thus, we aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Little is known about the ongoing monkeypox (mpox) outbreak, and the clinical features of mpox in patients worldwide have not been rigorously analysed. Thus, we aimed to investigate the clinical features associated with mpox infection and understand the pathophysiology and characteristics of the disease. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for articles published till 16 September 2022. We used a random effects model to calculate the pooled prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the I statistic to assess heterogeneity, Egger's test to assess publication bias, 95% prediction interval to determine the level of uncertainty, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool to assess the risk of bias. Twenty-six relevant articles from 19 countries across 5 continents were included, and data on 5472 mpox patients with 18 unique features were analysed. The pooled prevalence of clinical features of mpox were rash (85.7%, 95% CI: 68.3-94.3; k = 21), chills (77.8%, 95% CI: 70.5-83.7; k = 3), and fever (62.3%, 95% CI: 51.3-71.6; k = 25), lymphadenopathy (58.6%, 95% CI: 47.2-69.2; k = 21), lethargy or exhaustion (46.8%, 95% CI: 30.7-63.5; k = 14), pruritus (40.6%, 95% CI: 28.5-54.0; k = 5), myalgia (36.0%, 95% CI: 24.3-49.7; k = 16), headache (34.6%, 95% CI: 23.4-47.8; k = 17), skin ulcer (31.1%, 95% CI: 18.6-47.1; k = 7), abdomen symptom (24.2%, 95% CI: 17.9-31.9; k = 11), pharyngitis (23.0%, 95% CI: 12.7-37.9; k = 14), respiratory symptom (19.5%, 95% CI: 6.8-44.6; k = 6), nausea or vomiting (13.0%, 95% CI: 4.6-31.9; k = 3), scrotal or penile oedema (10.7%, 95% CI: 6.3-17.7; k = 4), conjunctivitis (7.1%, 95% CI: 2.4-18.9; k = 6), and death (0.9%, 95% CI: 0.4-2.0; k = 26). This is the first international and comprehensive study to examine all clinical presentations of human mpox infection. Our systematic review proposes a comprehensive understanding of the current mpox outbreak and may serve as key data for future studies on the pathological mechanisms and epidemiology of mpox infections.
Topics: Humans; Mpox (monkeypox); Pharyngitis; Prevalence; Exanthema; Fever
PubMed: 37056203
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2446 -
BMC Urology Mar 2021Infection is the most feared complication of a penile prosthesis. Diabetes mellitus (DM) is widely known to increase the risk of several infections, but its role in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infection is the most feared complication of a penile prosthesis. Diabetes mellitus (DM) is widely known to increase the risk of several infections, but its role in the penile prosthesis is still controversial. This systematic review aims to show the contemporary scenario of penile prosthesis infection and present a meta-analysis about DM contribution to penile prosthesis infection.
METHODS
The review was performed with no language or time limitation, including ten databases. The included articles were about the male population who received a penile prosthesis with no model restriction, with a minimum follow up of 1 year, and outcomes adequately reported.
RESULTS
The mean infection incidence of penile prosthesis ranged from 0.33 to 11.4%. In early 2000, the general incidence of infection was 3 to 5%, then, the introduction of coated materials decreased it to 0.3 to 2.7%. The meta-analysis showed that diabetes mellitus is related to an increased risk of penile prosthesis infection with an odds ratio of 1.53 (95% CI 1.15-2.04).
CONCLUSIONS
Penile prosthesis infection decreased in the last decades but remains a significant cause of reoperation, and it is related to lower prosthesis survival. Meta-analysis concludes that diabetes mellitus is related to a higher risk of penile prosthesis infection.
Topics: Diabetes Complications; Humans; Male; Penile Prosthesis; Prosthesis-Related Infections
PubMed: 33691670
DOI: 10.1186/s12894-020-00730-2 -
Translational Andrology and Urology Apr 2024Priapism is a rare condition characterized by persistent erection of the penis that lasts more than 4 hours in the absence of sexual stimulation and is associated with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Priapism is a rare condition characterized by persistent erection of the penis that lasts more than 4 hours in the absence of sexual stimulation and is associated with significant morbidity and complications, including erectile dysfunction and penile fibrosis. Surgical management of priapism can be extremely challenging. We herein provide a comprehensive review that aims to evaluate the role of penile prosthesis (PP) implantation in the management of priapism.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus to identify studies that evaluated the effectiveness of PP implantation in treating priapism and the long-term complications, outcomes, and patients' satisfaction rate.
RESULTS
Out of 717 English-language studies published between 2002 and 2022, 17 were chosen for this review. Majority of patients had a malleable PP (MPP) implant, either early or delayed after the priapism episode. Early placement (EP) of PP is widely defined between studies ranging from less than 72 hours, within 1 week, and within 3 weeks. Most common causes of priapism were sickle cell anemia (SCA), medication-induced, and idiopathic. Studies show a higher satisfaction rate ranging between 80% and 100%, with sexual intercourse achievement ranging between 64.2% and 100%. Based on the GRADE system, included studies rated as very low quality of evidence. Commonly reported complications that arise after PP procedures, include device infection, erosion, curvature, and mechanical malfunction, such as auto-inflation.
CONCLUSIONS
PP can be an effective treatment option for priapism, particularly in cases of ischemic priapism lasting more than 36 hours or recurrent priapism that is medically refractory. However, due to the very low quality of evidence, larger, well-designed studies are warranted where long-term outcomes, patients' satisfaction, and complications following priapism-related PP implantation are measured as endpoints.
PubMed: 38721288
DOI: 10.21037/tau-23-224 -
Urologia Internationalis 2020Penile prosthesis implant is a safe and effective option in erectile dysfunction patients, being implant procedures safe with a low risk of infection. However, when...
INTRODUCTION
Penile prosthesis implant is a safe and effective option in erectile dysfunction patients, being implant procedures safe with a low risk of infection. However, when infection occurs, it represents a concrete problem for both surgeon and patient.
METHODS
This is a comprehensive review of all issues relating to prosthesis infection, including causes and risk factors, methods of prevention, and management. We analyzed all preoperative and perioperative factors, which can play a role in infection of the device.
RESULTS
Infection of penile prosthesis implant is hard to manage and correct. While the incidence of infection following first implant is up to 3%, in cases of re-implant surgery, the rate can reach as high as 18%. Many articles were found addressing prevention and treatment of penile prosthesis infection, and many analyzed all relevant pre- and perioperative factors associated with penile prosthesis implant. Although such factors have been well studied, there is no clear consensus worldwide on certain topics.
CONCLUSIONS
Penile prosthesis implant is a safe and effective option. Despite infection is a rare event, surgeons should follow strictly pre-, intra- and postoperative recommendations in order to reduce the risk of device's infection. An appropriate antibiotic therapy should be tailored on patient's characteristics and pathogens isolated.
Topics: Humans; Male; Penile Prosthesis; Prosthesis-Related Infections
PubMed: 32541156
DOI: 10.1159/000508472 -
Sexual Medicine Reviews Oct 2021Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), a glycated form of hemoglobin, develops when glucose is elevated in the blood. It is used as a marker of how well a diabetic patient has been... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), a glycated form of hemoglobin, develops when glucose is elevated in the blood. It is used as a marker of how well a diabetic patient has been controlling their blood sugar over the previous 3-4 months. Some use HbA1c as a predictor of infection risk during prosthetic surgery, and many surgeons require patients to lower it preoperatively.
OBJECTIVE
This study was designed to comprehensively review the literature relating HbA1c and penile prosthesis (PP).
METHODS
A PubMed search of English-language articles identified studies that investigate the relationship between HbA1c levels and PP infection. Studies were only included if they reported the mean HbA1c of all PP patients and compared patients who did/did not develop a prosthetic infection. References from relevant articles are included.
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies, 1992-2020, were identified. 2 studies occurred before the advent of antibiotic-enhanced devices in the early 2000s and have limited applicability to the modern era. Of the 4 studies published after, 2 reported a significant difference in mean HbA1c when comparing patients who developed a prosthetic infection and those who did not (9.1% vs 7.5%, P = .000 and 9.5% vs 7.8%, P < .001). The other 2 studies reported no significant difference in mean HbA1c when comparing patients who developed a prosthetic infection and those who did not (7.0% vs 7.6%, P > .05; and 7.6% vs 7.5%, P = .598).
CONCLUSION
Current data regarding HbA1c as a predictor of PP infection are inconclusive, with no consensus. HbA1c is increasingly used as a predictor of postsurgical prosthetic infection, with some urologists requiring patients with elevated HbA1c to acutely lower it before elective surgery. While there are a number of established health benefits of controlling elevated blood sugar, larger randomized controlled trials need to validate whether acutely lowering perioperative HbA1c decreases risk of prosthetic infection. Dick BP, Yousif A, Raheem O, et al. Does Lowering Hemoglobin A1c Reduce Penile Prosthesis Infection: A Systematic Review. Sex Med Rev 2021;9:628-635.
Topics: Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Male; Penile Diseases; Penile Prosthesis; Prosthesis-Related Infections
PubMed: 32768358
DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2020.06.004 -
International Journal of Impotence... Nov 2020The aim of this study was to identify the factors associated with infection in patients who undergo penile prosthesis implantation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to identify the factors associated with infection in patients who undergo penile prosthesis implantation.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review/meta-analysis, including clinical trials, quasi-experiments, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, and case-control studies. Searching was done in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. Participants were patients who had erectile dysfunction, regardless of the etiology, and underwent penile prosthesis implantation. Two researchers reviewed each reference by title and abstract. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan® 5.3).
RESULTS
A total of 513 studies were found with the search strategies. After excluding duplicates, 40 studies with a total of 175,592 patients were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Among patient characteristics, we found that diabetes mellitus and immunosuppression appear to have increase odds of infection. Related to the procedure, infection-retardant-coated penile prosthesis and primary (first) surgery appear to lower odds of infection.
CONCLUSIONS
Diabetes mellitus and immunosuppression were associated with increased infection rates; infection-retardant coating of the prosthesis and primary surgery were associated with reduced infection rates.
Topics: Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Penile Implantation; Penile Prosthesis; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32015525
DOI: 10.1038/s41443-020-0232-x -
Cancers Aug 2023High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is etiologically related to cervical cancer, other anogenital cancers and oropharyngeal carcinomas. Low-risk HPV, especially HPV6... (Review)
Review
High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is etiologically related to cervical cancer, other anogenital cancers and oropharyngeal carcinomas. Low-risk HPV, especially HPV6 and HPV11, cause genital warts and laryngeal papillomas. However, the accumulating data suggests that HPV6 and HPV11 may cause malignant lesions at non-cervical anatomic sites. This review aims to estimate the proportions of single and dual HPV6/11 infections in multiple cancers reported in the last 10 years in the Cochrane, Embasa and PubMed databases. Secondly, the genomes of HPV6/11 were compared with the most common high-risk genotype, HPV16, to determine the similarities and differences. A total of 11 articles were selected, including between one and 334 HPV+ cancer patients. The frequencies of single or dual HPV6/11 infections ranged between 0-5.5% for penile and 0-87.5% for laryngeal cancers and were null for vulvar, vaginal and oral cancers. The genomic similarities between HPV6/11 and HPV16 mainly involved the gene, indicating a limited ability to block cell differentiation. The presence of single or dual HPV6/11 infections in variable proportions of penile and laryngeal cancers support the vaccination strategies that cover these genotypes, not only for preventing genital warts but also for cancer prevention. Other risk factors and co-carcinogens are likely to participate in epithelial carcinogenesis associated with low-risk HPV.
PubMed: 37627099
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15164068 -
Surgical Infections Feb 2016Controversy still exists in some centers on whether diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for penile prosthesis infection. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Controversy still exists in some centers on whether diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for penile prosthesis infection. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence correlating penile implant infections to the presence of diabetes mellitus in patients with organic erectile dysfunction.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review searching through Medline database from 1960 to 2014, using keywords; penile prosthesis(es), penile implant(s), and diabetes mellitus. We used the Prisma 2009 Flow diagram for systematic reviews. Thirty-eight publications were selected for inclusion in this qualitative analysis.
RESULTS
Most case series reporting a greater infection rate in patients with diabetes mellitus date from the 1970s to 1990s. These series reported an infection rate of 5.5 to 20% and contained small cohort of patients. In the 1990s larger case series reported a lower infection rate in patients with diabetes mellitus compared with patients with paraplegia, pelvic trauma, and patients on steroids, but still reported an infection rate as high as 10.6%. With the implementation of antibiotic coated implants in 2001, infection rates reduced further with reported rates becoming less than 2% in patients with diabetes mellitus. The latest and largest case series by Eid et al. (2012) reported an infection rate of 0.46% with antibiotic coated implants and "no touch" technique in a cohort of 1511 cases, out of which 41% were patients with diabetes mellitus.
CONCLUSION
Strong evidence exists that the risk of penile prosthesis infection has reduced over the decades with device improvement and surgical expertise. In larger case series infection rates in patients with diabetes mellitus is not statistically significant from that experiences in the population at large.
Topics: Diabetes Complications; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Penile Prosthesis; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 26426099
DOI: 10.1089/sur.2015.164