SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 5

Usefulness of FGSI and UFGSI scoring systems for predicting mortality in patients with Fournier’s gangrene: A multicenter study

Orhan ÜREYEN
Atahan ACAR
Uğur GÖKÇELLİ
Murat Kemal ATAHAN
ENVER İLHAN
Pages
389–394
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Whichever scoring system is used, we suggest the use of the extent of disease score in UFGSI

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of Fournier’s gangrene scoring index (FGSI) and Uludag FGSI (UFGSI) for predicting mortality in patients with FG.METHODS: Patients who underwent treatment and follow-up in the A division department of general surgery at two education and research hospitals between January 2012 and December 2015 were evaluated for mortality-related factors.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients were grouped as survivors (Group I) or non-survivors (Group II).RESULTS: In total, 29 patients were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Whichever scoring system is used, we suggest the use of the extent of disease score in UFGSI
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of Fournier’s gangrene scoring index (FGSI) and Uludag FGSI (UFGSI) for predicting mortality in patients with FG.METHODS: Patients who underwent treatment and follow-up in the A division department of general surgery at two education and research hospitals between January 2012 and December 2015 were evaluated for mortality-related factors. The sensitivities of FGSI and UFGSI scoring systems for predicting mortality-related factors and disease prognosis were evaluated. Patients were grouped as survivors (Group I) or non-survivors (Group II).RESULTS: In total, 29 patients were included in the study. The mean age (±SD) was 51.52±13.36 years. The mortality rate was 20.6% (six patients). Bacterial growth was observed in wound cultures of 17 patients (58.6%). Of the patients with bacterial growth, 11 (47.8%) were in Group I and six (100%) were in Group II. The presence of bacterial growth was significantly associated with mortality (p=0.028). Fourteen patients (48.3%) had comorbid conditions. The number of comorbid conditions was related (p=0.049). FGSI and UFGSI scores were significantly higher in Group II than in Group I (p=0.002 and p=0.001, respectively). Among UFGSI parameters, extent of disease, body temperature, pulse rate, and HCO3 values were significantly higher in Group II than in Group I (p<0.05). The FGSI and UFGSI scoring systems had 100% sensitivity and 78.2% and 73.9% specificity, respectively, for predicting mortality.CONCLUSION: The FGSI and UFGSI scoring systems are valuable for predicting mortality in patients with FG. The extent of the disease was an important prognostic parameter in this study. Whichever scoring system is used, we suggest the use of the extent of disease score in UFGSI

🔖

Cite This Article

ÜREYEN, O., ACAR, A., GÖKÇELLİ, U., ATAHAN, M. K., İLHAN, E. (2017). Usefulness of FGSI and UFGSI scoring systems for predicting mortality in patients with Fournier’s gangrene: A multicenter study. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 5, 389–394. https://ajindex.com/articles/324807

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Polistena A, Cavallaro G, D’Ermo G, Avenia N, De TomaG. Fournier’s gangrene: earlydiagnosis. How to diagnose, how to manage it. Minerva Chir 2014:69:113–9
  2. Smith GL, Bunker CB, Dinneen MD. Fournier’s gangrene. Br J Urol 1998;81:347–55
  3. Eke N. Fournier’s gangrene: a review of 1726 cases. Br J Surg 2000;87:718–28
  4. Czymek R, Frank P, Limmer S, SchmidtA, Jungbluth T, Roblick U, et al. Fournier’s gangrene: is the female gender a risk factor? Langenbecks Arch Surg 2010;395:173–80
  5. Roghmann F, Bodman C, Löppenberg B, Hinkel A, Palisaar J, Noldus J. Isthere a need for the Fournier ’ s gangrene severity index? Comparison of scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with Fournier’s gangrene. BJU International 2012;110:359–65
  6. Yilmazlar T, Ozturk E, Ozguc H, Ercan I, Vuruskan H, Oktay B. Fournier’s gangrene: an analysis of 80 patients and a novel scoring system. Tech Coloproctol 2010;14:217–23
  7. Laor E, Palmer LS, Tolia BM. Outcome prediction in patients with Fournier’s gangrene. J Urol 1995;154:89–92
  8. Wróblewska M, kuzaka B, Borkowski T, Kuzaka P, Kawecki D, Radziszewski P. Fournier’s gangrene – current concepts. Pol J Microbiol 2014;63:267–73
  9. Sugihara T, Yasunaga H, HoriguchiH, Fujimura T, Ohe K, Matsuda S, et al. Impact of surgical intervention timing on the case fatality rate for Fournier’s gangrene: an analysis of 379 cases. BJU International 2012;110:1096–100
  10. Lin TY, Ou CH, Tzai TS, Tong YC, Chang CC, Cheng HL. Validation and simplification of Fournier’s gangrene severity index. Int J Urol 2014;21:696–701
  11. Sorensen MD, Krieger JN, Rivara FP, Broghammer JA, Klein MB, Mackand CD, et al. Fournier’s gangrene: popu¬lation based epidemiology and outcomes. J Urol 2009;181:2120–6
  12. Taviloglu K, Cabioglu N, Cagatay A, Yanar H, Ertekin C, Baspinar I, et al. Idiopathic necrotizing fasciitis: risk factors and strategies for management. Am Surg 2005;71:315–20
  13. Yılmazlar T, Işık O, Öztürk E, Özer A, Gülcü B, Ercan İ. Fournier’s gangrene: Review of 120 patients and predictors of mortality. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2014;20:333–7
  14. Marin AG, Fuentes FT, Ayuso MC, Lillo JAA, Ballesteros JCC, Lopez MP. Predictive factors for mortality in fournier’s gangrene: A series of 59 cases. Ciresp 2015;93:12–7
  15. Ulug M, Gedik E, Girgin S, Celen MK, Ayaz C. The evaluation of microbiology and Fournier’s gangrene severity index in 27 patients. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2009;13:424–30
  16. Kuo CF, Wang WS, Lee CM,