Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 294   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size


 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 248-253  

Pattern and outcome of management of Fournier's gangrene in a resource-constraint setting


1 Department of Surgery, Urology, Surgery Units, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital, Sokoto, Nigeria
2 Department of General Surgery, Surgery Units, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital, Sokoto, Nigeria
3 Department of Plastic and Reconstructive, Surgery Units, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital, Sokoto, Nigeria

Date of Submission24-Apr-2019
Date of Acceptance21-Nov-2019
Date of Web Publication17-Jul-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Abubakar Sadiq Muhammad
Department of Surgery, Urology Unit, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital, Sokoto
Nigeria
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_62_19

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Introduction: Fournier's gangrene (FG) is a necrotizing fasciitis of the external genitalia and perineum but may involve upper thigh and anterior abdominal wall.
Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective study of 47 patients managed for FG at Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital from January 2001 to June 2017. Data were entered into a semi-structured pro forma and analyzed using SPSS version 20.0.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 42.7 ± 19.4 years, with age range of 7 weeks to 72 years. All the patients were male. The patients had underlying urologic conditions in 27.6%, 15.0% were postoperative, 4.2% had anorectal diseases, 10.6% had medical conditions, and 42.6% were idiopathic. After resuscitation, all the patients had serial debridement, Hypertonic saline bath, broad spectrum antibiotics and wound dressing. The wound healed by secondary intention in 34.0% and 32.3% of the patients had wound closure ± skin graft. The treatment was successful in 68.0% of the patients, 15.0% left against medical advice, and 17.0% died of severe sepsis.
Conclusion: FG mainly affects men with existing urologic conditions in our environment. Aggressive debridement, hypertonic saline sitz bath, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and appropriate wound care are associated with good outcome.

Keywords: Fournier's gangrene, Fournier's Gangrene Severity Index, mortality, necrotizing fasciitis, predisposing factors, Uludag Fournier's Gangrene Severity Index


How to cite this article:
Agwu NP, Muhammad AS, Abdullahi AA, Bashir B, Legbo JN, Mungadi IA. Pattern and outcome of management of Fournier's gangrene in a resource-constraint setting. Urol Ann 2020;12:248-53

How to cite this URL:
Agwu NP, Muhammad AS, Abdullahi AA, Bashir B, Legbo JN, Mungadi IA. Pattern and outcome of management of Fournier's gangrene in a resource-constraint setting. Urol Ann [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Sep 25];12:248-53. Available from: http://www.urologyannals.com/text.asp?2020/12/3/248/289962




   Introduction Top


Fournier's gangrene (FG) is usually an acute rapidly progressive and potentially fatal form of necrotizing fasciitis of the external genitalia and perineum, but it may, at times, involve the thigh and abdominal wall.[1] In its initial description, this syndrome was presumed to be of idiopathic etiology, as it was reported to occur in apparently healthy young adult males.[2] Although commonly described in adult males, FG has been reported in the neonates, early childhood as well as in the females.[3],[4],[5]

In the past two decades, increasing understanding of the etiopathogenesis of the disease have demonstrated that it is an infective process as there is usually a finding of the source or focus of infection in a majority of the patients ranging from the perineal and genital skin foci as a consequence of at times trivial urogenital, perineal anorectal trauma.[6] The underlying medical conditions in patients with FG include human immunodeficiency infection, diabetes mellitus, chronic alcoholism, and malignancy.[7],[8],[9],[10],[11] These conditions provide a favorable environment for infection as a result decreased host immunity, thus allowing a portal of entry and proliferation of inoculated microorganisms. Pathogenesis of FG is a result of the synergetic activities of multiple bacteria of low virulence that reside in the perineum which include aerobes and anaerobes.[8] Multiplication of the bacteria results in elaboration of various exotoxins and enzymes such as collagenase, heparinize, hyaluronidase, streptokinase, and streptodornase which promote further multiplication and spread of the infection.[9] The aerobic bacteria cause platelet aggregation and induce complement and the resultant coagulation.[10],[11] The anaerobic bacteria promote formation of clots by producing collagenase and heparinize.[12] The infection spreads along fascial planes with initial involvement of the superficial fascia and deep fascial planes of the genitalia and later involvement of the skin. Infection of the Colles fascia may spread to the penis and scrotum through the Buck's fascia and the anterior abdominal wall via the Scarpas's fascia.[6]

FG is urological emergency, and current management is based on a multimodal and multidisciplinary approach consisting of aggressive resuscitation with intravenous fluids including blood transfusion, urgent radical surgical debridement, and initiation of broad antibiotics.[12],[13],[14],[15]

Despite this aggressive approach to management, FG is associated with significant mortality. This has led to the use of different validated scoring systems such as FG Severity Index (FGSI) and the Uludag FGSI (UFGSI) in order to prognosticate survivals in the affected patients.[16],[17]

We present our experience in the management of patients with FG in a resource-constraint setting in Northwestern Nigeria.


   Patients and Methods Top


This was a descriptive retrospective study of 47 out of 77 patients diagnosed and managed for FG at Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital from January 2001 to June 2017. Case notes of patients who were clinically diagnosed to have FG were retrieved from the medical records and information consisting of patient demographics, mode of presentation, site of infection, comorbid medical conditions, wound culture results, duration of admission, treatment and outcomes of management were entered into a pro forma and data were analyzed using IBM, Statistical Software Package for Social Sciences, version 25 (2018), Chicago, IL, USA.

Protocol of management for patients with Fournier's gangrene in our institution

After admission, patients were resuscitation with intravenous fluids, blood transfusion where indicated and triple antibiotics administered intravenously. These include ceftriaxone, gentamicin, and metronidazole. Gentamicin was not given for the patient with chronic kidney disease. Patients subsequently had serial debridement, hypertonic saline bath twice a day, wound dressing with povidone-iodine and honey. Wound was covered with appropriate cover depending on the size of the defect when healing by secondary intention was not achieved. Plastic surgeons were involved when the wound defects were penile and or extensive.


   Results Top


A total of 77 patients were managed for FG within the study period but only 47 patients with complete data were analyzed. The mean age of the patients and age range were 42.7 ± 19.4 years and 7 weeks to 72 years, respectively. The presentations include scrotal/penile pain in 25 patients (53.2%), fever in 32 patients (68.1%), scrotal/penile swelling and discharge in 37 patients (78.7%). The disease start with an early phase of cellulits involving penoscrotal area before full thickness gangrene with shameful exposure of the testes as shown in [Figure 1] and [Figure 2] respectively. The most common sites affected scrotum and or penis which occurred in 42 patients (89.3%). Other details are shown in [Table 1].
Figure 1: Scrotal and penile swellings in early phase of Fournier's gangrene

Click here to view
Figure 2: Established Fournier's gangrene affecting scrotum and penis

Click here to view
Table 1: Distribution of Fournier's gangrene

Click here to view


Urologic conditions were found in 20 patients (42.6%), and it was idiopathic in 15 patients (32.0%). Other risk factors are shown in [Table 2].
Table 2: Risk factors for Fournier's gangrene

Click here to view


Other coexisting risk/comorbidities present include congestive heart failure in three patients (6.4%), hypertension in two patients (4.2%), chronic renal failure in one patient (2.1%) and organic mood disorder in one patient (2.1%). Wound culture was done in 15 patients (31.9%), and the most common organism isolated was  Escherichia More Details coli in seven patients (14.9%). Other organisms isolated include Staphylococcus aureus in three patients (6.4%), Proteus mirabilis in two patients (4.3%),  Salmonella More Details, Pseudomonas, and Klebsiella species in one patient (2.1%) each.

Urine was diverted in 19 patients (40.4%) which was suprapubic in 25% and urethral in 14.9%.

The wound healed by secondary intention in 10 patients (21.3%) with small penoscrotal wounds <3 cm. Wounds were closed by simple closure in 16 patients (34.0%), split-thickness skin graft was done in seven patients (14.9%) with penile wounds, and advancement flap was done in two patients (4.3%) with at least 50% loss of scrotal skin.

The mean duration of symptoms, admission, FGSI, and UFGSI scores is shown below in [Table 3]. The patients presented late and were on admission for at least a month.
Table 3: Mean durations of presentation, admission, and Fournier's gangrene severity scores

Click here to view


Thirty-two patients (68%) were discharged home after successful management. The mortality rate was 17%. Other details of the outcome are shown in [Table 4] and [Table 5].
Table 4: Outcome of Fournier's gangrene

Click here to view
Table 5: Analysis of variance for Fournier's gangrene outcome using severity scores

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


FG is a rare urologic emergency, and most published articles are case reports or case series that involve limited number of patients.[18],[19] However, Sorensen et al.[20] in a population-based epidemiological review found that FG patients are rarely admitted to most American hospitals and have an incidence of 1.6/100,000 males, and this represented 0.02% of hospital admissions. In our study, 77 of patients were diagnosed to have FG though complete records could only be obtained in 47 patients. The age of the patients varied from early childhood to the elderly as has been similarly documented by other authors.[3],[4],[21] However, this occurrence in young children differs in studies by Eke,[15] Sorensen et al.,[20] and Asseban et al.,[22] and this difference may be due to differences in home hygiene and care of children in the different populations. The mean age of patients in this study was 42.7 years, and this is similar to reports by Aliyu et al.[21] from Maiduguri, Nigeria, and Chalya et al.[23] in Tanzania whereas, studies from Canada,[19] United States of America,[20] Morrocco,[22] Egypt,[24] and Turkey[25] showed a higher mean age of above 50 years for patients presenting with FG. The lower mean age of presentation in our study is due to the lower life expectancy and the younger age of the present study population.

All the patients in this study were males as been similarly reported by Aliyu et al.[21] and Ghnnam.[24] Exclusive presentation in males with FG in our practice is probably due to the pattern of referral in our practice, whereby patients with perineal or scrotal gangrene are preferentially sent to the urologists if males but to the gynecologists if females. This pattern of referral ensures that female patients with FG are managed by the gynecologists.

There was significant delay in patient presentation to the urologists, and this occurred in mean of 12.6 days with a range of 2–60 days. The delay is due to the remote locations of patient's residence making access to health services difficult coupled with the near absence of any form of health insurance for the rural dwellers. As such, sick patients and relatives have to source for funds which may entail sale of domestic animals or farm produce prior to hospital visit, and these further contribute to the delay in presentation. The delay in presentation is associated with higher scores in both FGSI and UFGSI, thus higher morbidity and mortality.

Involvement of the scrotum, penis, thigh, groin, and anterior abdominal wall in our patients further indicates significant delay and late presentation as been reported by Avakoudjo et al.[26] In this study, 10.7% of the patients had gangrene localized to the penis without involvement or extension to the scrotum or anterior abdominal wall. This is part of the spectrum of the FG syndrome as has been reported in our center by Ntia andMungadi[27] as well as by Turo et al.[28]

Comorbid diseases in this series were found in only 31.9% of the patients, and these included diabetes mellitus, retroviral disease, and congestive cardiac failure. Diabetes mellitus has been identified as the most common comorbid condition in patients with FG.[6],[9],[10] Retroviral disease, a common and emerging scourge in Sub-Saharan Africa, has had a profound impact on the course of FG. The two aforementioned disease entities induce host immunosuppression that creates and maintains the environment for the acute spreading penoscrotal, perineal necrotizing fasciitis. Three of our patients developed FG following generalized anarsarca that occurred in congestive cardiac failure. The scrotal edema occasioned by the cardiac disease was the predisposing factor and nidus for the scrotal infection in these patients.

Microorganisms commonly associated with FG are a combination of aerobic and anaerobic organisms that usually reside below the pelvic diaphragm and external genitalia.[15] In our study, anaerobic specimen culture was not done, as this was not available as at the time of presentation. However, the most commonly isolated microbes in those patients who had wound culture E. coli, S. aureus, and Proteus species as has been reported by Chalya et al.[23] and Tang et al.[29]

The standard approach to the management of FG is a multidisciplinary, multimodal treatment and this involves prompt resuscitation, broad-spectrum antibiotics consisting of antibiotics that are effective against the mixed anaerobic and aerobic microorganisms, serial debridement that may be followed by an array of perineal and penoscrotal reconstructive procedures depending on the nature of the defect.[6],[15],[30],[31] After the initial immediate resuscitation, commencement of broad-spectrum antibiotics, our patients had wound care that involved immediate debridement in 33 (66%) of the patients in those with significant necrotic slough. Of these, 29 of the patients had repeated wound debridement as the initial procedure was not adequate. Patients also had Sitz bathe and wound dressing using 10% povidone-iodine. Complete wound healing by secondary intention was achieved in 10 (21.3%) of our patients without the need for further surgical reconstruction. Quite a number of the patients in this study underwent simple closure of the scrotal defects as earlier documented by Akilov et al.,[32] and this obviated the need for skin grafting or scrotal flap reconstruction. Skin grafting was applied in those patients with penile skin defects, whereas advancement scrotal flaps were applied in those in whom neither wound healing by secondary intention nor primary scrotal skin closure was possible.

Fecal and urinary diversion have been carried out in patients with FG, as this has been found to improve outcomes in such selected patients with FG.[1],[6],[13],[33] In this study, however, there was no indication for fecal diversion, though 19 patients had urinary diversion in the form of urethral catheterization or suprapubic cystostomy. The patients who had suprapubic cystostomy were mainly those who had penile involvement as urethral catheterization was no suitable for such patients.

Use of hyperbaric oxygen and vacuum-assisted closure device either singly or in combination was reported to yield good results in the developed world,[34],[35],[36],[37],[38] and these adjuvant modalities were not applied on our patients as these are not available in our practice. Hypertonic saline bath is simple, cost-effective, and produced the same results in our patients as reported by other study in resource-constraint settings.[21]

Despite this aggressive approach to management, FG is associated with significant mortality. The mortality rate in this study was 17%. This is similar to the finding of Tarchouli et al.,[39] however, higher mortality rates have been reported by Oymacı et al.,[40] (18.8%), Ersay et al.,[41] (22.8%), and Benjelloun el et al.[42] The lower mortality rate in this study may be attributed to selective presentation by patients who had survived the initial septic state or may be the probable higher immunity in a population that have been exposed to chronic and recurrent microbial infections.

The high mortality rate in FG has led to the use of different validated scoring systems as a means of predicting probable outcomes in these patients.[16] These scoring systems include the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fascitis,[43] FGSI,[44],[45],[46] and its modifications, the UFGSI,[47] and the simplified FGSI.[48],[49],[50] The FGSI is based on physiologic and metabolic status of the patients and was first described in 1995.[50],[51] The score is estimated from analysis of the standard vital the signs usually collected at the emergency room and consists of nine clinical and laboratory parameters such as temperature, pulse rate, respiratory rate, serum sodium, potassium, bicarbonate, creatinine, hematocrit, and white blood cells, while its modification in the UFGSI involves addition of age and dissemination scores introduced in 2010.[51] When FGSI score is ≥9, there is 75% probability of mortality, while score <9 has 78% probability of survival. Uludag score (UFGSI) ≥9 has sensitivity and specificity of 94% and 81%, respectively. In the present study, the patients that died had FGSI and UFGSI of 9.2 ± 3.7 and 12.5 ± 5.7, respectively, while the patients that survived had FGSI and UFGSI of 5.4 ± 3.3 and 3.2 ± 3.2, respectively, (P = 0.04, 0.05) as reported by the previous studies.[45],[46],[51] Among the patients who absconded from the hospital during the period of admission, mean FGSI and UFGSI were 4.7 ± 0.9 and 8.0 ± 2.1. These patients did not die on admission but had absconded from admission due to prolonged hospital stay with the resultant economic cost in lost man hours and financial difficulties in an environment of near absence of viable health insurance.


   Conclusion Top


FG is not an uncommon urologic condition in our practice, occurs mainly in younger patients who usually present late for treatment and often have underlying diseases. Prompt and adequate resuscitation, aggressive debridement, and appropriate broad-spectrum antibiotics give favorable outcome. Use of hypertonic saline bath is effective in resource-constraint setting.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Smith GL, Bunker CB, Dinneen MD. Fournier's gangrene. Br J Urol 1998;81:347-55.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Thambi Dorai CR, Kandasami P. Fournier's gangrene: Its aetiology and management. Aust N Z J Surg 1991;61:370-2.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Aslanidis T, Myrou A, Giannakou-Peftoulidou M. Management of a young female patient with Fournier's gangrene and Lemierre's syndrome. Pan Afr Med J 2014;18:275.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Bains SP, Singh V, Gill MK, Jain A, Arry V. Fournier's gangrene in a child. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8:1-5.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Mosayebi Z, Omidian A, Movahedian AH, Kompani F, Hosseininodeh SS. Fournier's gangrene in a neonate with acute myeloid leukemia: A case report. Iran J Pediatr 2016;26:e4537.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Mallikarjuna MN, Vijayakumar A, Patil VS, Shivswamy BS. Fournier's gangrene: Current practices. ISRN Surg 2012;2012:942437.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Elem B, Ranjan P. Impact of immunodeficiency virus (HIV) on Fournier's gangrene: observations in Zambia. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1995;77:283-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Ngugi P, Magoha G, Nyaga P. Fournier's ganrene in the HIV era. Afr Health Sci 2014;14:1063-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Yoshino H, Kawakami K, Yoshino G, Sawada K. Case of anal fistula with Fournier's gangrene in an obese type 2 diabetes mellitus patient. J Diabetes Investig 2016;7:276-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Shaik N. Necrotizing fasciitis and diabetes mellitus. Int J Diab Dev Ctries 2007;27:14-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Tahmaz L, Erdemir F, Kibar Y, Cosar A, Yalcýn O. Fournier's gangrene: Report of thirty-three cases and a review of the literature. Int J Urol 2006;13:960-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Chennamsetty A, Khourdaji I, Burks F, Killinger KA. Contemporary diagnosis and management of Fournier's gangrene. Ther Adv Urol 2015;7:203-15.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Ioannidis O, Kitsikosta L, Tatsis D, Skandalos I, Cheva A, Gkioti A, et al. Fournier's Gangrene: Lessons learned from multimodal and multidisciplinary management of perineal necrotizing fasciitis. Front Surg 2017;4:36.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Singh G, Chawla S. Aggressiveness – The key to a successful outcome in Fournier's Gangrene. Med J Armed Forces India 2004;60:142-5.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Eke N. Fournier's gangrene: A review of 1726 cases. Br J Surg 2000;87:718-28.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Doluoǧlu ÖG, Karagöz MA, Kılınç MF, Karakan T, Yücetürk CN, Sarıcı H, et al. Overview of different scoring systems in Fournier's gangrene and assessment of prognostic factors. Turk J Urol 2016;42:190-6.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Corcoran AT, Smaldone MC, Gibbons EP, Walsh TJ, Davies BJ. Validation of the Fournier's gangrene severity index in a large contemporary series. J Urol 2008;180:944-8.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Al-Ali BM, Popper H, Pummer K. A case of Fournier's gangrene after hydrocelectomy. Cent European J Urol 2012;65:92-3.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
McCormack M, Valiquette AS, Ismail S. Fournier's gangrene: A retrospective analysis of 26 cases in a Canadian hospital and literature review. Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9:E407-10.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
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;181:2120-6.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Aliyu S, Ibrahim AG, Ali N, Waziri AM. Fournier's Gangrene as seen in university of Maiduguri teaching hospital. ISRN Urol 2013;2013:673121.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Asseban A, Kallat A, Mazdar A, El Sayegh A, Iken A, Benslimane L, et al. Fournier's gangrene: Analysis of 14 cases. Open J Urol 2014;4:109-13.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Chalya PL, Igenge JZ, Mabula JB, Simbila S. Fournier's gangrene at a tertiary health facility in Northwestern Tanzania: A single centre experiences with 84 patients. BMC Res Notes 2015;8:481.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Ghnnam WM. Fournier's gangrene in Mansoura Egypt: A review of 74 cases. J Postgrad Med 2008;54:106-9.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
25.
Unalp HR, Kamer E, Derici H, Atahan K, Balci U, Demirdoven C, et al. Fournier's gangrene: Evaluation of 68 patients and analysis of prognostic variables. J Postgrad Med 2008;54:102-5.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
26.
Avakoudjo D, Natchagandé G, Hounnasso P, Gandaho K, Hodonou F, Tore-Sanni R, et al. Fournier'S gangrene in Cotonou, Benin republic. J West Afr Coll Surg 2013;3:75-87.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Ntia IO, Mungadi IA. The pattern of penile gangrene in Sokoto in Nigeria. Afri J Urol 2007;13:255-61.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Turo LF, Roshan M, Satish Rao BS, Ravikrishan J, Menczes LT. Founier's gangrene of the penis. Indian J Plast Surg 2005;38:154-6.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Tang LM, Su YJ, Lai YC. The evaluation of microbiology and prognosis of Fournier's gangrene in past five years. Springerplus 2015;4:14.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Fahal AH, Hassan MA. Fournier's gangrene in Khartoum. Br J Urol 1988;61:451-4.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Nickel JC, Morales A. Necrotizing fasciitis of the male genitalia (Fournier's gangrene). Can Med Assoc J 1983;129:445-8.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Akilov O, Pompeo A, Sehrt D, Bowlin P, Molina WR, Kim FJ. Early scrotal approximation after hemiscrotectomy in patients with Fournier's gangrene prevents scrotal reconstruction with skin graft. Can Urol Assoc J 2013;7:E481-5.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Oguz A, Gümüş M, Turkoglu A, Bozdaǧ Z, Ülger BV, Agaçayak E, et al. Fournier's Gangrene: A Summary of 10 Years of Clinical Experience. Int Surg 2015;100:934-41.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Pastore AL, Palleschi G, Ripoli A, Silvestri L, Leto A, Autieri D, et al. A multistep approach to manage Fournier's gangrene in a patient with unknown type II diabetes: surgery, hyperbaric oxygen, and vacuum-assisted closure therapy: A case report. J Med Case Rep 2013;7:1.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Thom SR. Hyperbaric oxygen: Its mechanisms and efficacy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127 Suppl 1:131S-41S.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Korhonen K, Hirn M, Niinikoski J. Hyperbaric oxygen in the treatment of Fournier's gangrene. Eur J Surg 1998;164:251-5.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Silberstein J, Grabowski J, Parsons JK. Use of a vacuum-assisted device for Fournier's gangrene: A new paradigm. Rev Urol 2008;10:76-80.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Zagli G, Cianchi G, Degl'innocenti S, Parodo J, Bonetti L, Prosperi P, et al. Treatment of Fournier's Gangrene with combination of vacuum-assisted closure therapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and protective colostomy. Case Rep Anesthesiol 2011;2011:430983.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Tarchouli M, Bounaim A, Essarghini M, Ratbi MB, Belhamidi MS, Bensal A, et al. Analysis of prognostic factors affecting mortality in Fournier's gangrene: A study of 72 cases. Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9:E800-4.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Oymacı E, Coşkun A, Yakan S, Erkan N, Uçar AD, Yıldırım M. Evaluation of factors affecting mortality in Fournier's gangrene: Retrospective clinical study of sixteen cases. Ulus Cerrahi Derg 2014;30:85-9.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Ersay A, Yilmaz G, Akgun Y, Celik Y. Factors affecting mortality of Fournier's gangrene: Review of 70 patients. ANZ J Surg 2007;77:43-8.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Benjelloun el B, Souiki T, Yakla N, Ousadden A, Mazaz K, Louchi A, et al. Fournier's gangrene: Our experience with 50 patients and analysis of factors affecting mortality. World J Emerg Surg 2013;8:13.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Kincius M, Telksnys T, Trumbeckas D, Jievaltas M, Milonas D. Evaluation of LRINEC scale feasibility for predicting outcomes of Fournier gangrene. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2016;17:448-53.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Shashirekha CA, Pramod T, Nagaraj KN, Harish Kumar, Rakesh N. Evaluation of Fournier's gangrene severity index in the management of Fournier's gangrene: A retrospective study.Int Surg J 2016;3:169-72.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Khandelwal R, Tandon CM, Saradna A, Gupta D, Bahl B. Fournier's gangrene severity index as a predictor of outcome in patients with Fournier's gangrene: A prospective clinical study at a tertiary care center. J Young Med Res 2013;1:e2.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Shukla PK, Ghanghoria A, Yedalwar V. Fournier's gangrene: A prospective study of 57 patients with special reference to validity of Fournier's gangrene severity index in predicting the outcome and mortality. Int Surg J 2016;3:1256-61.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Üreyen O, Acar A, Gökçelli U, Atahan MK, İlhan E. Usefulness of FGSI and UFGSI scoring systems for predicting mortality in patients with Fournier's gangrene: A multicenter study. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2017;23:389-94.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Tenório CE, Lima SV, Albuquerque AV, Cavalcanti MP, Teles F. Risk factors for mortality in Fournier's gangrene in a general hospital: Use of simplified Founier gangrene severe index score (SFGSI). Int Braz J Urol 2018;44:95-101.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Saber A, Bajwa TM. A simplified prognostic scoring system for Fournier's gangrene. Urol Nephrol Open Access J 2014;1:18.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Sabzi Sarvestani A, Zamiri M, Sabouri M. Prognostic factors for Fournier's gangrene; a 10-year Experience in Southeastern Iran. Bull Emerg Trauma 2013;1:116-22.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Tanrikulu Y, Tanrikulu CS, Cagsar M, Yilmaz G. The analysis of factors affecting prognosis in Fournier's gangrene and the importance of severity scores: Our results in fifty-two patients. Acta Med Mediterr 2015;31:391.  Back to cited text no. 51
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Patients and Methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed184    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded53    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal