Biofilms and Infection

[sambalamba]

Two more...

Can you share the SMSNA link. I have an SMSNA account.

They had it embedded in the Education>Videos section, but now it's open access in YouTube.

https://youtu.be/UK-HX-8loNc?si=bWEPw0lpYCJ8kLCC

Thanks. One other point which I saw Perito make in one of his MTP YouTube casts is that biofilm formation is not unique to only penile implants. It's true for any type of implants for example hip or knee replacement implants. In fact he claimed that the risk of infection for a hip or knee replacement surgery if much higher. Any thoughts?

[ElbowRoom]

Hey all...I was using Grok to do research for my surgery, and ended up down the infection/biofilm rabbit hole. Please excuse me if everybody knows all this, but it was new to me so I thought I'd share.

I do seem to recall from my research which I did sometime ago on this topic that a large population study of explanted implants showed all implants having bacteria on their surface but not necessarily biofilm. I seem to recall a certain critical threshold of bacteria population will trigger the formation of biofilm as a protective barrier for the entire colony. Also read that at the hands of dedicated high volume surgeons with quick surgery times and better infection prevention protocols the chance of colony formation is less.

What did your research say on these matters?

I asked Grok if the formation of biofilms was inevitable, and here's what I got back:

Biofilm formation on three-piece inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs) is not inevitable, but it is a significant risk due to the nature of implantable devices and the surgical environment. While biofilms can form on any implanted medical device, their development and progression to symptomatic infections are influenced by multiple factors, making them neither guaranteed nor rare but rather a manageable risk with a relatively low incidence. The occurrence of clinically significant biofilm infections is uncommon (1–3% for primary IPP implantations), but subclinical biofilms may be more frequent and only sometimes lead to symptoms. Below is a detailed analysis of whether biofilm formation is inevitable, the factors affecting its occurrence, and its rarity in the context of IPPs.
1. Is Biofilm Formation Inevitable?

Biofilm formation is not an inevitable outcome of IPP implantation, but the conditions surrounding surgery and implantation create a conducive environment for it to occur:

Bacterial Exposure: During surgery, IPPs are exposed to skin flora (e.g., Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus), airborne bacteria, or contaminants from the surgical field. Even with strict aseptic techniques, some bacterial contact with the device is possible.
Surface Adhesion: IPP materials (silicone, polyurethane) are biocompatible but provide surfaces for bacterial adhesion, especially if not coated with anti-adhesive or antimicrobial agents. Once bacteria adhere, they can initiate biofilm formation within hours.
Subclinical Biofilms: Studies suggest that many implanted devices, including IPPs, may harbor subclinical biofilms (bacteria in a dormant state within a matrix) that do not cause symptoms. A 2017 study in The Journal of Sexual Medicine found that sonication of explanted, asymptomatic IPPs revealed bacterial presence in up to 30% of cases, indicating subclinical biofilms are common but do not always progress to infection.
Progression to Infection: Biofilm formation only becomes problematic when it leads to symptomatic infections, which depends on bacterial load, pathogen virulence, host immunity, and external triggers (e.g., hematogenous seeding). Thus, while some degree of bacterial adhesion may be nearly universal, clinically significant biofilms are not inevitable.

2. Factors Influencing Biofilm Formation

The likelihood and extent of biofilm formation depend on several controllable and uncontrollable factors:

Surgical Factors:
Aseptic Technique: Rigorous protocols (e.g., “no-touch” technique, antibiotic irrigation) significantly reduce bacterial contamination. Breaches in sterility increase biofilm risk.
Operative Time: Longer surgeries increase exposure to contaminants, raising the chance of adhesion.
Revision Surgeries: Scar tissue and residual biofilms from prior implants increase infection rates (10–18% vs. 1–3% for primary implantation).
Device Factors:
Coatings: Antibiotic-impregnated coatings (e.g., InhibiZone™ with rifampin/minocycline) or hydrophilic coatings (e.g., Coloplast’s PVP) reduce bacterial adhesion by 50–70%, per clinical studies. Non-antibiotic coatings (e.g., silver, antimicrobial peptides) are emerging but not yet standard.
Design Complexity: The three-piece IPP’s multiple components (reservoir, cylinders, pump) provide more surfaces for biofilm formation compared to simpler devices like malleable prostheses.
Patient Factors:
Comorbidities: Diabetes (especially HbA1c >7%), obesity, smoking, and immunosuppression impair immune responses, increasing biofilm formation and infection risk.
Infections: Pre-existing urinary tract infections or poor hygiene can introduce pathogens during surgery.
Postoperative Factors:
Wound Care: Poor wound management or prolonged catheterization can facilitate bacterial colonization.
Hematogenous Seeding: Late bacterial spread from distant infections (e.g., dental procedures, cystoscopy) can colonize existing biofilms, triggering symptoms years later.
Pathogen Factors: Virulent or biofilm-prone pathogens (S. epidermidis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa) are more likely to form persistent biofilms than less adhesive bacteria.

3. Is Biofilm Infection a Rare Occurrence?

Biofilm-related infections on IPPs are relatively rare but not negligible, with incidence rates varying by context:

Primary Implantation: The infection rate for first-time IPP implantation is 1–3%, based on large cohort studies (e.g., The Journal of Urology, 2018). This low rate reflects effective preventive measures like antibiotic coatings and prophylaxis.
Revision Surgeries: Infection rates rise to 10–18% due to scar tissue, disrupted tissue planes, and potential reactivation of latent biofilms, making infections less rare in this group.
Subclinical Biofilms: As noted, up to 30% of asymptomatic IPPs may harbor biofilms, detected via sonication or molecular diagnostics. These are common but rarely progress to symptomatic infections without a trigger (e.g., trauma, seeding).
Comparison to Other Devices: IPP infection rates are similar to those of other urological implants (e.g., artificial urinary sphincters, 1–5%) but lower than high-risk devices like ventricular shunts (5–15%) or vascular catheters (up to 20%), per Clinical Infectious Diseases reviews.

4. Timing vs. Occurrence

The question of whether biofilm formation is only a matter of timing (i.e., inevitable but delayed) or a rare event hinges on the distinction between formation and symptomatic infection:

Biofilm Formation: Some bacterial adhesion is likely during implantation due to the impossibility of perfect sterility. However, modern preventive strategies (e.g., coated devices, aseptic techniques) often limit this to subclinical levels, preventing progression to mature biofilms. Thus, significant biofilm formation is not inevitable and can be minimized.
Symptomatic Infections: These are rare (1–3% in primary cases) because most biofilms remain dormant or are cleared by host defenses and antibiotics. Timing plays a role, as infections are most common within 12 months (60–80% of cases) due to perioperative contamination, but late infections (20–30%, up to years later) can occur due to hematogenous seeding or biofilm reactivation. The rarity of symptomatic infections reflects the low probability of biofilms reaching a critical threshold for clinical impact.
Data Example: A 2020 study in Sexual Medicine Reviews reported that while 70% of IPP infections occur within 6–12 months, late infections (beyond 12 months) account for 20–30% of cases, often triggered by external factors rather than inevitable progression.

5. Preventive Measures and Their Impact

The low incidence of biofilm infections underscores the effectiveness of preventive strategies, which reduce both the occurrence and severity of biofilms:

Antibiotic-Coated IPPs: Devices like Boston Scientific’s InhibiZone™ (rifampin/minocycline) reduce infection rates from 2–3% to <1% in primary implantations, per clinical trials.
Hydrophilic Coatings: Coloplast’s PVP coating, even without antibiotic soaking, reduces bacterial adhesion by up to 70% in vitro, lowering biofilm risk.
Surgical Protocols: “No-touch” techniques, antibiotic irrigation (e.g., gentamicin/rifampin), and short operative times minimize contamination.
Prophylactic Antibiotics: AUA guidelines recommend vancomycin + gentamicin within 1 hour of incision, reducing early infection risk.
Patient Optimization: Controlling diabetes (HbA1c <7%) and screening for infections preoperatively further decrease biofilm formation.
Emerging Non-Antibiotic Coatings: Silver, antimicrobial peptides, or nanostructured surfaces (though not yet standard) could further reduce subclinical biofilms, potentially making symptomatic infections even rarer.

6. Clinical Implications

Not Inevitable: Biofilm formation can be prevented or limited to subclinical levels with modern techniques, making symptomatic infections a low-probability outcome rather than a certainty.
Not Rare in High-Risk Cases: Patients undergoing revision surgeries or with comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, immunosuppression) face a higher, non-negligible risk, particularly for late infections.
Monitoring: Since biofilms can remain dormant and cause symptoms years later, long-term follow-up is essential, especially for subtle signs like chronic pain or device erosion.

7. Summary

Biofilm formation on three-piece IPPs is not inevitable, though some bacterial adhesion is common due to surgical exposure. Preventive measures like antibiotic-coated devices, hydrophilic coatings, aseptic techniques, and patient optimization reduce the likelihood of significant biofilms, making symptomatic infections rare (1–3% in primary implantations, higher in revisions). While subclinical biofilms may be present in up to 30% of cases, they infrequently progress to clinical infections, with timing influenced by perioperative contamination (most common within 12 months) or late triggers like hematogenous seeding (possible years later). The low incidence reflects effective prevention, but the risk persists, requiring ongoing vigilance. Biofilm infections are thus a manageable, uncommon complication rather than an unavoidable outcome.

[ElbowRoom]

Fascinating read, thank you ElbowRoom for sharing this! I'll upload some slides from a recent SMSNA presentation about biofilms.

Thanks for those slides, excellent information there.

[ElbowRoom]

I guess one concern I have is that if most implants have some degree of bacterial colonization, which are largely asymptomatic, what are the long-term implications of that for patient health?

* Is antibiotic resistance more likely over time if antibiotics are taken for other reasons and some of those medications make their way through the film but not enough to kill the bacteria?

* Are there long-term immune system implications to having subclinical bacterial infections over an extended period? Is something like "immune system fatigue" a possibility?

* What about inflammatory responses to the film itself? Inflammation has been leaked to many, if not most disease processes including atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease...is there likely to be some subclinical inflammation that could have long-term effects?

Just some interesting possibilities to consider regarding all implants. Here's a link to the entire conversation if you want to read all the details. I ask the above questions as well as all the others I previously discussed in this thread. I'm not sure if you need a Grok subscription to read this.

https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_8ffc8209-490e-4600-a553-0b5332568d34

[Kodixx]

Is there any way to detect bacterial colonization, and, could or should some form of treatment be used to minimize or eliminate ? My apologies if those questions were already covered in the reference materials from above.

- Chuck

[ElbowRoom]

Is there any way to detect bacterial colonization, and, could or should some form of treatment be used to minimize or eliminate ? My apologies if those questions were already covered in the reference materials from above.

- Chuck

I think the only way to detect this problem would be to do a scraping of the implant surfaces. This of course would disrupt any biofilms in place and lead to a very high risk of infection. The bacteria are otherwise undetectable as they are hidden from detection behind the film's EPS matrix. Perhaps there's a way to detect the EPS itself, but that's something I have not looked at.

As I mentioned previously, I'd really like to see some aggressive studies done on using ultrasound combined with antibiotics to break up the films and expose the colonized bacteria to the antibiotics. If at first sign of infection a thorough ultrasound "cleaning" is done, combined with strong oral or IV antibiotics, my sense is that there could be far fewer revisions necessary.

This is already a practice used on other implant types, so it's not new ground. The only issue is fine-tuning the technique, frequency, and energy used for effective film disruption without harming the implant structures or patient tissues.

[Kodixx]

ElbowRoom, thank you for the response and detailed explanation. Sounds very forward looking, and definitely makes you wonder why those techniques haven't been applied to penile implants. I have a follow-up scheduled with my Dr (at a teaching/research medical system), and am anxious to ask him about the point you made.

- Chuck

I think the only way to detect this problem would be to do a scraping of the implant surfaces. This of course would disrupt any biofilms in place and lead to a very high risk of infection. The bacteria are otherwise undetectable as they are hidden from detection behind the film's EPS matrix. Perhaps there's a way to detect the EPS itself, but that's something I have not looked at.

As I mentioned previously, I'd really like to see some aggressive studies done on using ultrasound combined with antibiotics to break up the films and expose the colonized bacteria to the antibiotics. If at first sign of infection a thorough ultrasound "cleaning" is done, combined with strong oral or IV antibiotics, my sense is that there could be far fewer revisions necessary.

This is already a practice used on other implant types, so it's not new ground. The only issue is fine-tuning the technique, frequency, and energy used for effective film disruption without harming the implant structures or patient tissues.

[LastHope]

Can you share the SMSNA link. I have an SMSNA account.

They had it embedded in the Education>Videos section, but now it's open access in YouTube.

https://youtu.be/UK-HX-8loNc?si=bWEPw0lpYCJ8kLCC

Thanks. One other point which I saw Perito make in one of his MTP YouTube casts is that biofilm formation is not unique to only penile implants. It's true for any type of implants for example hip or knee replacement implants. In fact he claimed that the risk of infection for a hip or knee replacement surgery if much higher. Any thoughts?

Yes Sambalamba. Biofilm matrix formation is true for all prosthetic implants. The infection risk is higher on hip/knee implants due to longer duration of surgery, higher mechanical stress (matrix disruption) and larger surface area (usually right and left sides).

[Discovernew]

Hey all...I was using Grok to do research for my surgery, and ended up down the infection/biofilm rabbit hole. Please excuse me if everybody knows all this, but it was new to me so I thought I'd share.

Apparently the big problem with any medical device, including penile implants (I specifically asked about IPPs, but I assume a lot of this applies to MPs as well) is not bacterial contamination itself. That can be resolved with antibiotics. The problem is biofilms, where the bacteria involved form a extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) capsule between the patient's tissue and the implant.

This capsule keeps the bacteria between the EPS layer and the implant itself, effectively shielding the bacteria from both the patient's immune system and any antibiotics. This is the reason implants are coated with antibiotics, to both kill bacteria and to get *under* any biofilms that form.

The Impregnated AMS material keeps antibiotics in contact with anything attempting to initially attach to the implant. Titan takes a different approach, using aqueous antibiotic solutions to prevent perioperative infection, and the hydrophilic coating then provides lasting protection by not allowing bacteria to "stick" to the implant.

The problem is once a biofilm is formed it's like a silent time bomb, and only causes a symptomatic infection when the film is disturbed, exposing the patient's tissues to the underlying bacteria. But then the underlying bacteria can continue leeching out, so antibiotic therapy is ineffective as the patient is continuously reinfected. That's why any significant infection generally results in a complete removal/revision.

These infections can occur anytime, but are most likely within 12 months of surgery when risk of bacterial contamination is highest. HOWEVER, 20-30% of serious infections occur years later, as any bacteria the implant is exposed to can attach and begin forming a biofilm.

Understanding all this, I asked Grok some speculative questions.

First, I asked if rough sex could disrupt an existing biofilm and cause a symptomatic infection. The answer is yes, especially if buckling of the cylinders or flexing of tubing occurs in locations where films have already formed. Just something scary to be aware of.

Secondly, I wondered if ultrasound could break up biofilms and then treat the underlying bacteria with standard antibiotic therapy. The answer was also yes! Apparently this is a technique used with other implant types, but hasn't been well studied yet in IPPs/MPs. It would require careful choice of the ultrasound frequency and energy to avoid weakening components or damaging patient tissues, but there's no reason it couldn't be effective.

I think that's something that should be aggressively studied...using ultrasound + antibiotics could save a lot of patients from revision surgeries when they have otherwise well-functioning implants. It might even be prudent to give a patient a course of antibiotics every three years or so, and a couple of days into the treatment do a complete ultrasonic "cleaning" of the implant components so that the antibiotics can sweep up any contamination.

Grok also mentioned that there are nano-coatings in development to solve the biofilm problem, but it was unclear to me if those are more for "hard" implants like knee replacements, and if they are suited to the softer materials that IPPs use.

Anyway...just the results of my research, which gave me a lot more detail that I knew previously. Carry on!

I recommend you to always prompt to any AI chat "link to your sources". If you do have the sources for those claims, paste them here. AI as it is today , tends to hallucinate a lot and say things it doesn't have proof of. But if you promt it to link to sources things can be much more accurate.

[sambalamba]

I recommend you to always prompt to any AI chat "link to your sources". If you do have the sources for those claims, paste them here. AI as it is today , tends to hallucinate a lot and say things it doesn't have proof of. But if you promt it to link to sources things can be much more accurate.

Totally agree. I one asked AI about reservoir placement and the answers we absolute sheer non-sense. It made up placement techniques on the fly. But some of the information it provides is actually accurate. I have see AI link to sources where the author name the AI quoted doesn't even show up.