Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The salvage procedure for infected penile implants (IPs) has been a subject of interest since its inception in the late 1980s, yet its widespread adoption remains limited. The aim of this study was to realize a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive analysis of salvage techniques for IPs and assess their efficacy, specifically focusing on functional success.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed, employing Mesh terms related to penile prosthesis, penile implant, infection, and salvage procedures. Articles in French or English were considered for the final analysis, with exclusion of literature reviews.
RESULTS: Fifteen articles detailing various salvage techniques for IPs were identified. Mulcahy\'s initial technique was described in 1996, and consisted of complete removal of infected components, extensive lavage, and subsequent replacement with a similar implant. Success rates ranged from 80% to 100%, with emerging trends favoring the use of malleable implants during salvage. Unfortunately, functional data remained limited. When salvage penile prosthesis placement involved a malleable prosthesis, between 20% and 33% of patients underwent conversion to hydraulic prosthesis.
CONCLUSIONS: The salvage procedure for infected penile implants is a reliable method, with success rates surpassing 80%. The need for comparative studies assessing the type of implant used during salvage is required to tailor conservative management strategies for optimal patient outcomes. Finally, few data have been published regarding subsequent conversions from malleable penile implants to hydraulic penile implants after salvage.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed, employing Mesh terms related to penile prosthesis, penile implant, infection, and salvage procedures. Articles in French or English were considered for the final analysis, with exclusion of literature reviews.
RESULTS: Fifteen articles detailing various salvage techniques for IPs were identified. Mulcahy\'s initial technique was described in 1996, and consisted of complete removal of infected components, extensive lavage, and subsequent replacement with a similar implant. Success rates ranged from 80% to 100%, with emerging trends favoring the use of malleable implants during salvage. Unfortunately, functional data remained limited. When salvage penile prosthesis placement involved a malleable prosthesis, between 20% and 33% of patients underwent conversion to hydraulic prosthesis.
CONCLUSIONS: The salvage procedure for infected penile implants is a reliable method, with success rates surpassing 80%. The need for comparative studies assessing the type of implant used during salvage is required to tailor conservative management strategies for optimal patient outcomes. Finally, few data have been published regarding subsequent conversions from malleable penile implants to hydraulic penile implants after salvage.
摘要：
背景：自1980年代后期成立以来，受感染的阴茎植入物（IPs）的抢救程序一直是人们关注的主题，然而，它的广泛采用仍然有限。这项研究的目的是实现一个系统的文献综述，以提供一个综合分析的打捞技术，并评估其疗效，特别关注功能上的成功。
方法：使用PubMed进行了系统的文献综述，采用与阴茎假体相关的网格术语，阴茎植入物,感染,和打捞程序。最后考虑了法语或英语的文章，排除文献综述。
结果：确定了15篇详细介绍各种IP救助技术的文章。Mulcahy的最初技术描述于1996年，包括完全去除受感染的成分，广泛灌洗，随后用类似的植入物替换。成功率从80%到100%不等,随着新兴趋势的出现，在抢救过程中倾向于使用可塑植入物。不幸的是,功能数据仍然有限。当挽救性阴茎假体放置涉及可塑性假体时，20%至33%的患者接受了液压假体的转换。
结论：感染阴茎植入物的抢救程序是一种可靠的方法，成功率超过80%。需要进行评估救助期间使用的植入物类型的比较研究，以定制保守的管理策略以获得最佳患者结果。最后,关于救助后从可塑性阴茎植入物到液压阴茎植入物的后续转换的数据很少。
方法：使用PubMed进行了系统的文献综述，采用与阴茎假体相关的网格术语，阴茎植入物,感染,和打捞程序。最后考虑了法语或英语的文章，排除文献综述。
结果：确定了15篇详细介绍各种IP救助技术的文章。Mulcahy的最初技术描述于1996年，包括完全去除受感染的成分，广泛灌洗，随后用类似的植入物替换。成功率从80%到100%不等,随着新兴趋势的出现，在抢救过程中倾向于使用可塑植入物。不幸的是,功能数据仍然有限。当挽救性阴茎假体放置涉及可塑性假体时，20%至33%的患者接受了液压假体的转换。
结论：感染阴茎植入物的抢救程序是一种可靠的方法，成功率超过80%。需要进行评估救助期间使用的植入物类型的比较研究，以定制保守的管理策略以获得最佳患者结果。最后,关于救助后从可塑性阴茎植入物到液压阴茎植入物的后续转换的数据很少。
