Use of glycosylated hemoglobin to identify diabetics at high risk for penile periprosthetic infections

J. R. Bishop, J. W. Moul, S. A. Sihelnik, D. S. Peppas, T. S. Gormley, D. G. McLeod

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

105 Scopus citations

Abstract

We report an 18-month prospective study of 90 patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation to evaluate a possible cause-and-effect relationship between degree of diabetic control and the risk of infection complicating the operation. Long-term diabetic control was objectively evaluated by measurement of the glycosylated hemoglobin of the patient, which is known to provide an objective value for degree of control for the preceding 60 to 90 days. Of 90 patients 5 (5.5%) had a periprosthetic infection requiring explantation and all infections occurred in the 32 diabetics (36%) in the population (p <0.009). Of the 32 diabetics 13 (41.1%) were poorly controlled with time as demonstrated by a glycosylated hemoglobin level of greater than 11.5% and 4 of the infections occurred in this group. Of the 19 remaining controlled diabetics (glycosylated hemoglobin level less than 11.5%) only 1 infection occurred. Therefore, infection occurred in 31% of the poorly controlled versus 5% of the adequately controlled patients (p <0.0003). Measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin values appears to be a useful tool to evaluate diabetic patients before implantation of a penile prosthesis. Patients with a glycosylated hemoglobin level of 11.5% or greater should be more optimally controlled before undergoing implantation in an effort to avoid infectious complications.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)386-388
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume147
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1992

Keywords

  • diabetes mellitus
  • hemoglobin A, glycosylated
  • infection
  • penile prosthesis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Use of glycosylated hemoglobin to identify diabetics at high risk for penile periprosthetic infections'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this