Logo image
Back
IP09-18 POST-OPERATIVE ANTIBIOTIC USE DOES NOT IMPACT DEVICE INFECTION RATES AFTER ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER PLACEMENT
Abstract   Peer reviewed

IP09-18 POST-OPERATIVE ANTIBIOTIC USE DOES NOT IMPACT DEVICE INFECTION RATES AFTER ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER PLACEMENT

Rachel Bergeson, Alexandria M. Hertz, Jonathan Seaman, Aziz Shabaan, Ryan Hanson, Maali La France, Steven Hudak and Maia Van Dyke
The Journal of urology, Vol.215(5S), p.e202
05/2026
DOI: 10.1097/01.JU.0001191316.72449.22.18

View Online

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice regarding postoperative antibiotics after artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement varies among urologists, and there is not robust literature to support or dispute their role in preventing device infection. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of postoperative antibiotic use on AUS device infection. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing AUS placement or revision at a single institution between January 2016 and March 2025 was performed. We compared rate of AUS infection between two cohorts of patients: those treated with prophylactic oral antibiotics after AUS surgery vs. those who were untreated. Patients how had erosions were excluded from analysis. Demographic, preoperative laboratory testing, and postoperative infection data were reviewed. The two cohorts were compared using Chi-square/Fischer Exact test, t-test, and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 742 AUS cases were performed by three fellowship-trained surgeons during the study period. The overall AUS infection rate was 1.6% (12/742). Median age was 71, median BMI was 28.6, 50.7% of patients had a history of radiation, 33.5% of cases were revisions, and 27.5% patients had diabetes. Of these 742, 151 (20.4%) did not receive postoperative antibiotics (20.4%), while 591 (79.6%) patients did receive postoperative antibiotics. Demographics were statistically similar between these two groups. None of the patients in the no postoperative antibiotic cohort developed device infection. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of infection between the two cohorts (0% vs. 2.03%, respectively, p=0.16). There was no statistically significant risk factor demonstrated to be a predictor of infection. On bivariate analysis, patients who had preoperative urinalysis (UA), positive preoperative urine culture, and revision cases were more likely to receive post operative antibiotics (p=0.02, p=0.003, p=0.001, respectively). However, none of these had an increased risk of infection (p=1 for all). CONCLUSIONS: The use of postoperative antibiotics was not associated with lower rates of AUS infection, calling into question the utility of routine postoperative antibiotics after device placement.

Details

Metrics

1 Record Views
Logo image