New Prognostic Factors in Fournier’s Gangrene: 10 Years Experience

Authors

  • Hasan Ahmadnia دانشگاه علوم پزشكی مشهد- بیمارستان قائم- استاد ارولوژی.
  • Mahmood Molaei دانشگاه علوم پزشكی مشهد- بیمارستان قائم- رزیدنت ارولوژی.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22100/jkh.v3i2.205

Keywords:

Prognosis, Risk factors, Fournier’s gangrene.

Abstract

Introduction: We have evaluated the prognostic and risk factors of the Fornier's gangrene.

Methods: 71 patients referred to Ghaem hospital during 1998- 2008 were reviewed in this study and evaluated for lab parameters (Urea, Cr, Hct, WBC, Alb, Na, Ca, and K) as well as probable risk factors.

Results: Mean age was 60.85 ± 17.02 years and the time between onset of symptoms and referring to a health care unit was 6.7±5.25. The sources of infection were skin (%35), urogenital (%48), and rectal (%17). Sixty of the patients were in the deceased group and comparing the mean temprature at the time of admission, respiratory rate and heart rate of the two groups, there was no significant difference between the survived and deceased groups. The difference was not significant between deceased and survived patients for WBC, Na, K, and Cr, while it was significant comparing Alb, Ca and level of extention.

Conclusion: Comparing the results of our study with conventional index, known as “Laor Fournier's gangrene severity index”, none of the implied indices in this study such as temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, Hct, Cr, WBC, Na, Ca, had the prognostic value in comparison of deceased and survived group. While in our study the confirmed prognostic factors were as follows: time between onset and referring to hospital, age, source of infection (poor prognosis when rectal as the source) and level of extension, Alb, urea, Ca, and number of required debridements.

References

Ayan F, Sunamak O, Paksoy SM, Polat SS, As A, Sakoglu N, et al. Fournier’s gangrene: a retrospective clinical study on forty-one patients. ANZ J Surg 2005;75(12):1055-8.

Vick R, Carson CC 3rd. Fournier’s disease. Urol Clin North Am 1999;26(4):841–849.

Paty R, Smith AD. Gangrene and Fournier’s gangrene. Urol Clin North Am 1992;19(1):149-62.

Kumar P, Clarke M, editors. Clinical medicine. 5th ed. Edinburgh: WB Saunders;2002.p.66-67.

McLatchie GR, Leaper DJ, editors. Oxford handbook of clinical surgery. 2nd ed. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press;2003.p.53,890.

David JE, Yale SH, Goldman IL. Urology: scrotal pain. Clin Med Res 2003;1(2):159-160.

Morrison D, Blaivas M, Lyon M. Emergency diagnosis of Fournier’s gangrene with bedside ultrasound. Am J Emerg Med 2005;23(4):544-547.

Ekelius L, Bjrkman H, Kalin M, Fohlman J. Fournier’s gangrene after genital piercing. Scand J Infect Dis 2004;36(8):610-612.

Miller JD. The importance of early diagnosis and surgical treatment of necrotizing fasciitis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1983;157(3):197-200.

Laor E, Palmer LS, Tolia BM, Reid RE, Winter HI. Outcome prediction in patients with Fournier’s gangrene. J Urol 1995;154(1):89-92.

Quatan N, Kirby RS. Improving outcomes in Fournier’s gangrene. BJU Int 2004;93(6):691-2.

Hollabaugh RS Jr, Dmochowski RR, Hickerson WL, Cox CE. Fournier’s gangrene: therapeutic impact of hyperbaric oxygen. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 101(1):94-100.

Published

2008-09-15

Issue

Section

Original Article(s)

How to Cite

New Prognostic Factors in Fournier’s Gangrene: 10 Years Experience. (2008). Knowledge and Health in Basic Medical Sciences, 3(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.22100/jkh.v3i2.205

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 > >>