Journals / Health Sciences Quarterly / 2022 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of two different surgical techniques in the treatment of Fournier’s Gangrene

Pages
213–221
Publication Date
2022-10-17
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)

However, it would be more appropriate for the clinician to make a profit-loss calculation due to both the length of the operation and its more complex nature and the prolongation of the hospital stay after wound closure

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Fournier’s gangrene is a rapidly progressive, fatal, necrotizing fasciitis of the perineum and penoscrotal region which requires rapid intervention.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 110 patients treated for Fournier’s gangrene at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Urology, Urology Clinic between 2009 and 2021 were evaluated retrospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, it would be more appropriate for the clinician to make a profit-loss calculation due to both the length of the operation and its more complex nature and the prolongation of the hospital stay after wound closure
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Fournier's gangrene · debridement · fasciocutaneous flap

Abstract

Fournier’s gangrene is a rapidly progressive, fatal, necrotizing fasciitis of the perineum and penoscrotal region which requires rapid intervention. This retrospective study compares the surgical outcomes of the fasciocutaneous flap and the embedding of the testicles into the thigh skin, applied for the reconstruction of penoscrotal defects after surgical debridement due to Fournier’s gangrene, in the light of the literature. A total of 110 patients treated for Fournier’s gangrene at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Urology, Urology Clinic between 2009 and 2021 were evaluated retrospectively. Among these, 82 patients treated with fasciocutaneous flap and embedding of the testicles into the thigh skin for the reconstruction of penoscrotal defects were included in the study. For these two wound closure methods, the cases were compared in age, hospital stay after debridement, hospital stay after wound closure, size of the debrided area, and postoperative complication parameters. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, comorbidity (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, etc.), and hospital stay after debridement. However, the length of hospital stay after wound closure and the size of the debrided area were significantly higher in patients with fasciocutaneous flap compared to the method in which the testis was embedded in the thigh. The fasciocutaneous flap application, which we apply for defects larger than 50% of the scrotum or extending beyond the scrotum, is a method that can be preferred by experienced surgeons for wound closure after Fournier gangrene debridement, considering patient comfort, since it does not create tension and blood supply to the testis is more comfortable. However, it would be more appropriate for the clinician to make a profit-loss calculation due to both the length of the operation and its more complex nature and the prolongation of the hospital stay after wound closure

🔖

Cite This Article

KURT, H. A., GÜVEN, E. O. (2022). Comparison of two different surgical techniques in the treatment of Fournier’s Gangrene. Health Sciences Quarterly, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 4, 213–221. https://ajindex.com/articles/878351

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Fournier JA. Gangrene foudroyante de la verge. MedPract. 1883;4:589-97
  2. Baurienne H. Sur une plaie contuse qui s’est terminee par le sphacele de la scrotum. J Med Chir Pharm. 1764;20:251-6 3. Wilson B. Necrotizing fasciitis. Am Surg. 1952;18:416-31
  3. Bugra D, Bozfakioglu Y, Buyukuncu Y, Bulut T. Gangrène de Fournier. Etude analytique de six cas [Fournier’s gangrene. Analytic study of 6 cases]. J Chir (Paris). 1990;127(2):115-6.5. Joury A, Mahendra A, Alshehri M, Downing A: Extensive necrotizing fasciitis from Fournier’s gangrene. Urol Case Rep. 2019;26:100943. doi: 10.1016/j.eucr.2019.10094
  4. Jones J. Investigation upon nature, causes and treatment of hospital gangrene as it prevailed in the confederate armies 1861-1865. New York, NY: US Sanitary Commission; 1871
  5. Eke N. Fournier’s gangrene: a review of 1726 cases. Br J Surg. 2000;87(6):718-28. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01497.x
  6. Pizzorno R, Bonnini F, Donelli R, Stubinskl M. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the treatment of Fournier’s disease in 11 male patients. J Urol. 1997;158:837-40. doi: 10.1097/00005392-199709000-00039
  7. Öztürk O, Bircan K, Şahin H, Korkmaz K, İslim F. Fournier gangreni: Skrotum ve perinenin nekrotizan yumuşak doku infeksiyonu (in Turkish). Dicle Tıp Dergisi 1994:21;137-40
  8. Paty R, Smith AD. Gangrene and Fournier’s gangrene. Urol Clin North Am. 1992;19(1):149-62
  9. Aşci R, Sarikaya S, Büyükalpelli R, Yilmaz AF, Yildiz S. Fournier’s gangrene: risk assessment and enzymatic debridement with lyophilized collagenase application. Eur Urol. 1998;34(5):411-8. doi: 10.1159/000019775
  10. Rani SA, Hoon R, Najafi RR, Khosrovi B, Wang L, Debabov D. The in vitro antimicrobial activity of wound and skin cleansers at nontoxic concentrations. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2014;27:65–9. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000443255.73875.a3
  11. Safioleas M, Stamatakos M, Mouzopoulos G, Diab A, Kontzoglou K, Papachristodoulou A. Fournier’s gangrene: Exists and it is still lethal. Int Urol Nephrol. 2006;38:653-7. doi: 10.1007/s11255-005-2946-6
  12. Morua AG, Lopez JA, Garcia JD, Montelongo RM, Guerra LS. Fournier’s gangrene: Our experience in 5 years, bibliographic review and assessment of the Fournier’s gangrene severity index. Arch Esp Urol. 2009;62(7):532-40
  13. Gorbach SL. Bartlett JG, Blacklow NR. Infectious diseases. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2004
  14. Goh T, Goh LG, Ang CH, Wong CH. Early diagnosis of necrotizing fasciitis. Br J Surg. 2014;101(1):e119-25. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9371
  15. Sato R