KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Erciyes Medical Journal / 2022 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 1

Do Current Scoring Systems Predict the Length of Hospital Stay in Cases of Fournier’s Gangrene?

Serdar KIRMIZI
Emil HÜSEYİNOĞLU
Sayfa
82–87
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Improvement or a new scoring instrument based on additional research is needed.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of scoring systems to predict the length of hospital stay in cases of Fournier’s gangrene (FG), and to contribute to the potential development of new scoring systems to more accurately predict the length of hospital stay of FG patients.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Materials and Methods: This retrospective study examined the data of FG patients treated between January 2016 and April 2021.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Improvement or a new scoring instrument based on additional research is needed.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2016 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of scoring systems to predict the length of hospital stay in cases of Fournier’s gangrene (FG), and to contribute to the potential development of new scoring systems to more accurately predict the length of hospital stay of FG patients. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study examined the data of FG patients treated between January 2016 and April 2021. The length of hospital stay was evaluated using demographic characteristics, laboratory values, vital signs, and Fournier’s Gangrene Severity Index (FGSI), Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC), and Combined Urology and Plastics Index (CUPI) scores. Results: A total of 28 patients were treated for FG during the study period. The mean length of hospital stay was 13.7±5.4 days. The median FGSI, LRINEC, and CUPI score was 2 (min–max: 0–11), 4 (min–max: 0–10), and 5.5 (min–max: 1–9), respectively. The analysis indicated that the CUPI score had a statistical correlation with the length of hospital stay; the FGSI and LRINEC were not found to have a significant predictive ability of the length of hospitalization. Conclusion: The findings indicated that the FGSI and LRINEC disease severity scores were not sufficient to predict the length of hospital stay. The CUPI scoring system was more useful but was judged to be a weak model. Improvement or a new scoring instrument based on additional research is needed.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KIRMIZI, S., HÜSEYİNOĞLU, E. (2022). Do Current Scoring Systems Predict the Length of Hospital Stay in Cases of Fournier’s Gangrene?. Erciyes Medical Journal, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 1, 82–87. https://ajindex.com/articles/502105

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Montrief T, Long B, Koyfman A, Auerbach J. Fournier gangrene: A Review for emergency clinicians. J Emerg Med 2019; 57(4): 488–500
  2. Sorensen MD, Krieger JN, Rivara FP, Broghammer JA, Klein MB, Mack CD, et al. Fournier’s gangrene: population based epidemiology and outcomes. J Urol 2009; 181(5): 2120–6
  3. Furr J, Watts T, Street R, Cross B, Slobodov G, Patel S. Contemporary trends in the ınpatient management of fournier’s gangrene: predictors of length of stay and mortality based on population-based sample. Urology 2017; 102: 79–84
  4. Eke N. Fournier’s gangrene: a review of 1726 cases. Br J Surg 2000; 87(6): 718–28
  5. Ghodoussipour SB, Gould D, Lifton J, Badash I, Krug A, Miranda G, et al. Surviving Fournier’s gangrene: Multivariable analysis and a novel scoring system to predict length of stay. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71(5): 712–8
  6. Eksi M, Arikan Y, Simsek A, Ozdemir O, Karadag S, Gurbuz N, et al. Factors affecting length of stay in Fournier’s gangrene: a retrospective analysis of 10 years’ data. Aktuelle Urol. 2020 Oct 21. doi: 10.1055/ a-1260-2576. [Epub ahead of print]
  7. 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
  8. Wong CH, Khin LW, Heng KS, Tan KC, Low CO. The LRINEC (Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis) score: a tool for distinguishing necrotizing fasciitis from other soft tissue infections. Crit Care Med 2004; 32(7): 1535–41
  9. Er S, Topcu R, Tikici D, Ozden S, Tez M. Evaluation of scoring systems in predicting mortality in Fournier gangrene. Turk J Clin Lab 2019; 10(2): 230–4
  10. Ozlulerden Y, Baser A, Celen S, Alkıs O. Can we predict poor prognosis in Fournier gangrene? J Surg Med 2020; 4(12): 1157–60
  11. Sugihara T, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, 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 Int 2012; 110(11 Pt C): E1096–100
  12. Hatipoglu E, Demiryas S, Şimşek O, Sarıbeyoğlu K, Pekmezci S. Fournier’s gangrene: Five years’ experience from a single center in Turkey. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2020; 26(2): 235–41
  13. Martínez-Rodríguez R, Ponce de León J, Caparrós J, Villavicencio H. Fournier’s gangrene: a monographic urology center experience with twenty patients. Urol Int 2009; 83(3): 323–8
  14. Yanar H, Taviloglu K, Ertekin C, Guloglu R, Zorba U, Cabioglu N, et al. Fournier’s gangrene: risk factors and stra