Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis score for early diagnosis of necrotizing fasciitis in Darwin

Can the SIARI score be used at initial admission to predict testes involvement in patients with fournier's gangrene; a single-centre, retrospective study

BACKGROUND

To predict testicular involvement in patients diagnosed with Fournier's gangrene (FG) using the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) score and the site other than lower limb (SIARI) score.

METHODS

The medical records of 51 patients operated for FG in our clinic between December 2012 and April 2022 were evaluated retrospectively in this study. Patients' demographics, and laboratory test results were compared with the testisticular involvement status. Patients with testisticular involvement (n = 10) were compared with patients without testicular involvement (n = 41). The SIARI score at initial admission was analysed using logistic regression analyses for its performance in predicting testicular involvement with FG. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were used to evaluate its discriminating ability.

RESULTS

The SIARI score had modest performance for diagnosing testicular involvement in FG patients, with ROC analysis showing an AUROC value of 0.83 (p < 0.001). With a SIARI cut-off score of ≥ 3, the sensitivity was 90% and the specificity was 68%. For a SIARI cut-off score of ≥ 5, the sensitivity was 40% and the specificity was 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of the SIARI score to discriminate FG with testicular involvement is modest. The SIARI score should be employed cautiously as a routine diagnostic tool for the prediction of testicular involvement in FG at the initial admission. More research is needed to develop a better understanding of the relationship between the SIARI score and testicular involvement in FG.

Diagnostic Key Points and Surgical Management of Necrotizing Fasciitis: A Retrospective Study

Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is a fatal disease with a high mortality rate that can be easily misdiagnosed. The aim of this study was to improve the diagnostic rate of NF and overall survival. We conducted a single-center, retrospective, noncontrolled study involving 36 patients who were admitted to our department between December 2017 and October 2019, and summarized the diagnostic key points and timing of surgical treatment. All patients were diagnosed at our department and underwent multiple courses of treatment. The records included information regarding underlying diseases, bacterial culture results, laboratory risk indicator for necrotizing fasciitis (LRINEC) score, number of procedures, and type of antibiotics. All 36 cases of NF were cured and showed good patient condition on follow-up; the mean number of surgeries was three, and the mean duration of hospitalization was 37 days (range, 21-83 days). The LRINEC scores of 16 patients were ≥8 points. Seventeen patients with underlying diabetic disease had higher inflammatory index scores than those without diabetes. The LRINEC scores of patients with (n = 17) and without (n = 19) DM were 7.40 ± 2.99 and 3.80 ± 2.39, respectively (P < .01). Cases of NF that were treated with early incision and surgical abscess drainage required fewer surgeries and a shorter length of hospitalization. Thus, surgeons should be more aware of NF and aim to make an early and accurate diagnosis using various approaches. Complete surgical debridement plays an essential role in NF treatment, and diabetes mellitus is a significant adverse factor that exacerbates the severity of NF. Negative-pressure techniques are useful in cases involving nonanaerobic infections and cause minimal complications.

Early diagnosis of necrotizing fasciitis: Imaging techniques and their combined application

Necrotizing fasciitis is a clinical, surgical emergency characterized by an insidious onset, rapid progression, and a high mortality rate. The disease's mortality rate has remained high for many years, mainly because of its atypical clinical presentation, which prevents many cases from being diagnosed early and accurately, resulting in patients who may die from uncontrollable septic shock and multi-organ failure. But unfortunately, no diagnostic indicator can provide a certain early diagnosis of NF, and clinical judgement of NF is still based on the results of various ancillary tests combined with the patient's medical history, clinical manifestations, and the physician's experience. This review provides a brief overview of the epidemiological features of NF and then discusses the most important laboratory indicators and scoring systems currently employed to diagnose NF. Finally, the latest progress of several imaging techniques in the early diagnosis of NF and their combined application with other diagnostic indices are highlighted. We point out promising research directions based on an objective evaluation of the advantages and shortcomings of different methods, which provide a basis for further improving the early diagnosis of NF.

Evaluation of laboratory risk indicator for necrotizing fasciitis score as an early diagnostic tool for necrotizing fasciitis: a prospective observational study

Introduction

From its historical identification to modern times with advancements in management modalities globally, the mortality of necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is high ranging from 19 to 30% for all affected sites. Although many diagnostic adjuncts have been developed to assist with the prompt and accurate diagnosis of NF, the primary diagnosis is still based on high clinical suspicion. The Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) score was developed as a tool for distinguishing NF from other soft tissue infections. The main objective of this study is to evaluate LRINEC as a tool for early diagnosis of NF and differentiating it from other soft tissue infections like cellulitis.

Methods

This is a single-centered, prospective observational study. Patients presenting with soft tissue infections of the limbs to the emergency department from November 2020 to October 2021 were included in this study. The clinical findings and blood parameters for the LRINEC score were collected and the score was calculated. Based on clinical suspicion of NF, patients underwent debridement and had a tissue biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. The data obtained was analyzed using SPSS version 24 and MS Excel. The AUC curve was used to calculate a cutoff, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values for the LRINEC score based on our study.

Results

Forty-five patients with 28 males and 17 females were included. The average age was 53.667 years within a range of 19-79 years. Among them 44.4% of the patients had NF and 66.6% had other minor forms of soft tissue infections. The ROC curve obtained a cutoff value of greater than or equal to 6, with an AUC of 0.751. At this cut of value study showed a sensitivity of 85% with a specificity of 52%. Similarly, positive predictive value was found to be 58.62%, negative predictive values of 81.25%, and overall accuracy of 66.67% in early diagnosis of NF.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study showed that the LRINEC score can be a reliable tool for the early diagnosis of NF in an ED setting. This scoring system is best to be used to rule out NF.

The performance of clinical risk scores in the diagnosis of necrotising fasciitis

OBJECTIVE

Necrotising fasciitis (NF) is a quickly progressing and potentially life-threatening infection, involving the fascia and subcutaneous tissues. The diagnosis of this disease is challenging, especially due to a lack of specific clinical signs. In order to ensure a better and quicker identification of NF patients, a laboratory risk indicator score has been developed for NF (LRINEC). A variant has widened this score by adding clinical parameters (modified LRINEC). This study shows current outcomes of NF and compares the two scoring systems.

METHODS

This study was conducted between 2011 and 2018, and included patient demographics, clinical presentations, sites of infection, comorbidities, microbiological and laboratory findings, antibiotic therapies and LRINEC as well as modified LRINEC scores. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A cohort of 36 patients, diagnosed with NF, were included in this study. The mean hospital stay was 56 days (±38.2 days). The mortality rate in the cohort was 25%. The sensitivity of the LRINEC score was 86%. Calculation of the modified LRINEC score showed an improvement of the sensitivity to 97%. The average LRINEC score and modified LRINEC score for patients who died and who survived were equal (7.4 versus 7.9 and 10.4 versus 10.0, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The mortality rate of NF remains high. The modified LRINEC score increased the sensitivity in our cohort to 97%, and this scoring system could be supportive in the diagnosis of NF for early surgical debridement.

Necrotising fasciitis: a case series set in rural Australia

Necrotising fasciitis (NF) is a rapidly progressive infection of soft tissue and fascia. Early diagnosis and prompt extensive surgical debridement decrease mortality. This remains a challenge for rural surgeons who have limited experience with the disease, in a setting where patient transfers to tertiary centres are lengthy and often delayed. To assist clinical decision making in this setting, a case series of five NF presentations in a rural Australian hospital were retrospectively analysed for presentation, investigation, treatment and clinical outcomes. Three underwent abdominal wall debridement and two underwent below knee amputation. Results demonstrate early recognition of NF and the extent of surgical intervention prior to acute transfer are key to successful outcomes. Expedient diagnosis and early extensive debridement at the initial contact reduce mortality and should be the goal of management in this setting.

Diagnostic and prognostic value of the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotising Fasciitis (LRINEC) based on an 18 years' experience

BACKGROUND

Necrotising fasciitis (NF) represents a rare but often life-threatening condition. Early diagnosis and surgical treatment are of vital importance. The LRINEC score was developed to distinguish necrotising fasciitis from other soft tissue infections (STI) at initial evaluation using six laboratory values. In this retrospective study, we attempted to determine the diagnostic and prognostic value of the LRINEC score.

METHODS

A total of 125 patients, hospitalised in our clinic between 2003 and 2021 with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of necrotising fasciitis (NF group) and 319 patients with surgically treated soft tissue infections (STI group) were included in this study. Individual LRINEC scores were calculated and analysed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of the LRINEC score at the cut-off point of ≥ 6 was 59%, whereas the specificity was 82%. The positive and negative predictive values were 57% and 84%, respectively. The mean LRINEC score was significantly higher in the NF group than in the STI group (6.0 compared to 2.4, respectively). All clinical outcome parameters such as amputation and mortality rates (15% vs 1%) were found to be significantly higher in the NF group (p<0.001). Within the NF group, there was no statistically significant association between the LRINEC score and clinical outcomes except for the necessary number of operations.

CONCLUSION

In isolation, we found the LRINEC score not to be a reliable enough diagnostic tool for the differentiation between NF and other soft tissue infections, because of its low sensitivity. Although we cannot recommend it as a prognostic tool either, we do believe it can be a useful adjunct to the clinical suspicion of NF.

Time Is Fascia: Laboratory and Anamnestic Risk Indicators for Necrotizing Fasciitis

Background: Necrotizing fasciitis is a potentially fatal soft tissue infection in which the timing of surgical intervention significantly affects clinical outcome. The Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) score, the Site other than the lower limb, Immunosuppression, Age <60 years, Renal impairment (creatinine >141), and Inflammatory markers (CRP ≥150, WCC >25) (SIARI) score, and procalcitonin levels are intended to aid in the decision-making process to differentiate between necrotizing fasciitis and soft tissue infections. Methods: A retrospective analysis of cases of necrotizing fasciitis and soft tissue infections treated at Klinikum Nürnberg was performed. The two scores as well as procalcitonin levels were tested for their diagnostic value and a new score, the Laboratory and Anamnestic Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LARINF), was created based on the results. Results: Procalcitonin, LRINEC score, and SIARI score showed insufficient discriminatory ability in our study. The newly created LARINF score combined laboratory parameters of the LRINEC score (hemoglobin and C-reactive protein) with procalcitonin and three comorbidities, resulting in a sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of 75% and the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.83. Conclusions: The LARINF score is a novel decision-supporting tool. The decision, in which cases surgical exploration should be initiated, remains a clinical one. However, the score seems to provide an improved basis for identifying a rare clinical picture.

Survival of an 80-Year-Old Male With a Successful Split-Thickness Skin Graft for End-Stage Necrotizing Fasciitis: A Case Report

Herein, we report a case of an 80-year-old male who was diagnosed with a fatal condition known as necrotizing fasciitis. This devastating soft tissue infection can cause profound damage to multiple tissue planes. Despite its etiology being multifactorial, impaired immunity with increasing age weighs in as the most significant. We intend to shed light on its detrimental clinical features and how we managed to treat the patient both conservatively and surgically. Through our case findings and management plan, we hope this case to be of clinical value and knowledge to clinicians to better diagnose and treat the deleterious condition.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of LRINEC Score for Predicting Upper and Lower Extremity Necrotizing Fasciitis

This review and meta-analysis aims to assess the prognostic value of the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) score for detecting necrotizing fasciitis in the extremities. The LRINEC score has been validated in multiple studies as a clinical tool for differentiating necrotizing fasciitis from non-necrotizing infections however many studies do not specify the location of infection. As the prevalence of diabetes and diabetic foot infections continues to rise, the utility of LRINEC scores in these populations becomes of increased importance. Four databases were reviewed for citations between January 2010 and December 2020. English, full text articles reporting the diagnostic effects of LRINEC were utilized in the systematic review portion of this paper. Further inclusion of 2 × 2 tables and discussion specific to the extremities were applied for citations implemented in the meta-analysis. Of the 111 results, 12 citations (n = 932) were included in this review. The diagnostic sensitivity of the LRINEC score ranged from 36% to 77% while specificity ranged from 72% to 93%. Cumulative odds ratio for LRINEC ≥6 among the 4 studies assessing extremity necrotizing fasciitis was 4.3 with p value of <.05. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value was 49.39%, 83.17%, 34.91%, and 89.99%, respectively. Accuracy, the classification by whether a patient was correctly classified, was 77.95%. LRINEC score is effective at distinguishing necrotizing fasciitis from other soft tissue infections however the LRINEC's score greatest clinical application may be its ability to rule out necrotizing fasciitis while its ability to accurately identify the presence of infection remains suboptimal.

Application of the laboratory risk indicator for necrotizing fasciitis score to the head and neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have attempted to verify the predictive capability of the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) for cervical necrotizing fasciitis (CNF).

METHODS

The two authors independently reviewed six databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Google Scholar databases were searched). Seven cohort studies were included in the analysis. Sensitivity and specificity were determined by extracting items from binary classification from each paper. The diagnostic accuracy of the included studies was evaluated using QUADAS ver. 2.

RESULTS

The diagnostic odds ratio (OR) of LRINEC for CNF with the cutoff value of 6 was 13.9952 (95% CI, 3.8537; 50.8255, I²  = 76.7%). The area under the SROC curve was 0.842, suggesting acceptable diagnostic accuracy. The correlation between sensitivity and false positive rate was 0.055, indicating that it was not heterogeneous. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values were 0.7503 ([0.4637; 0.9126], I²  = 79.1%), 0.8455 ([0.7084; 0.9250], I²  = 96.0%) and 0.9829 ([0.9089; 0.9970], I²  = 93.7%), respectively. In the comparison of subgroups according to a LRINEC score (6-8, and), the cutoff value of 6 showed moderate sensitivity (75%) and high specificity (85%) and greater diagnostic power than other cutoff values.

CONCLUSIONS

LRINEC is a useful adjunctive tool for predicting CNF in patients with a soft tissue infection. In addition, a more accurate diagnosis is possible by using the LRINEC score with a cutoff value of 6.

Necrotising soft tissue infection in western Sydney: An 8-year experience

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the risk factors, management, imaging validity, Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotising infection (LRINEC) score and outcomes of necrotising soft tissue infection (NSTI) at a western Sydney tertiary hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted of all patients with NSTI from 2012 to 2019 at our institution. Patient characteristics, imaging, microbiology and site, LRINEC score, surgical management and outcomes/disposition were collected.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients met the inclusion criteria with mean age of 52 years and body mass index of 38.1; 55.6% were male, 48% of Polynesian descent and 55.6% were diabetic. The most frequent sites of NSTI were perineal (30.6%), lower limb (30.6%), perianal (19.3%) and trunk (11.1%). A total of 64% of patients underwent computed tomography radiological imaging with diagnostic accuracy of 50%. The mean LRINEC score was 7 (1-20). A total of 52.8% were transferred from another facility or non-surgical teams which delayed surgical review by 11.4 h (P < 0.03) and operating time by 12.4 h (P < 0.04) compared with direct emergency department referrals to the on-call surgical team. There was no statistical difference in outcomes in both groups. The overall average time to surgical debridement was 16.2 h (standard deviation 19.6, range 3.4-105.1). The mean hospital length of stay was 20.9 days; 44.4% of patients were transferred for rehabilitation or plastic reconstruction with a single mortality from multi-organ failure.

CONCLUSION

The optimal management of NSTI requires a high index of suspicion and LRINEC score is a useful adjunct in aiding a clinician's decision. Early surgical debridement within 24 h of diagnosis and a multidisciplinary approach is associated with a lower mortality rate.

Predictive ability of LRINEC score in the prediction of limb loss and mortality in diabetic foot infection

It was aimed to analyze the effectiveness of the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) score in predicting amputation and mortality in diabetic foot infection (DFI). Data of 416 patients who were hospitalized for DFI were recorded retrospectively. LRINEC scores were calculated for each patient from laboratory data. The diagnostic performance of LRINEC score was investigated in amputated/nonamputated and survived/deceased patient groups. Median LRINEC score of patients who underwent amputation was higher than those without amputation (P < 0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) value for LRINEC score was 0.638 with the cut-off point of ≥5 in predicting amputation. Median LRINEC score of deceased patients was higher than those who survived (P= 0.022). AUC value for LRINEC score was 0.663 with the cut-off point of ≥7 in predicting mortality. LRINEC score may be a promising scoring system in predicting both amputation and mortality in DFI.

Prospective Validation of the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) Score for Necrotizing Fasciitis of the Extremities

OBJECTIVES

The Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis score was developed as a clinical decision tool for distinguishing necrotizing fasciitis from other soft tissue infections. We prospectively evaluated the performance of the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis score for the diagnosis of patients with necrotizing fasciitis in the extremities.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective and observational cohort study of emergency department patients with necrotizing fasciitis or severe cellulitis in the extremities between April 2015 and December 2016. The Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis score was calculated for every enrolled patient. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of cut-off scores of 6 and 8 were evaluated. The accuracy of the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis score was expressed as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients with necrotizing fasciitis and 825 patients with cellulitis were included. With an Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis cut-off score ≥6, the sensitivity was 43% (95% confidence interval 34% to 53%), specificity was 83% (95% confidence interval 80% to 86%), positive predictive value was 25% (95% confidence interval 20% to 30%), and negative predictive value was 92% (95% confidence interval 91% to 93%); with an Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis cut-off score ≥8, the sensitivity was 27% (95% confidence interval 19% to 37%), specificity was 93% (95% confidence interval 91% to 94%), positive predictive value was 33% (95% confidence interval 25% to 42%), and negative predictive value was 91% (95% confidence interval 90% to 92%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for accuracy of the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis score was 0.696 (95% CI 0.640 to 0.751).

CONCLUSION

The Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis score may not be an accurate tool for necrotizing fasciitis risk stratification and differentiation between severe cellulitis and necrotizing fasciitis in the emergency department setting based on our study.

A systematic review showing the lack of diagnostic criteria and tools developed for lower-limb cellulitis

BACKGROUND

Cellulitis can be a difficult diagnosis to make. Furthermore, 31% of patients admitted from the emergency department with suspected lower-limb cellulitis have been misdiagnosed, with incorrect treatment potentially resulting in avoidable hospital admission and the prescription of unnecessary antibiotics.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to identify diagnostic criteria or tools that have been developed for lower-limb cellulitis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases in May 2018, with the aim of describing diagnostic criteria and tools developed for lower-limb cellulitis, and we assessed the quality of the studies identified using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. We included all types of study that described diagnostic criteria or tools.

RESULTS

Eight observational studies were included. Five studies examined biochemical markers, two studies assessed imaging and one study developed a diagnostic decision model. All eight studies were considered to have a high risk for bias in at least one domain. The quantity and quality of available data was low and results could not be pooled owing to the heterogeneity of the findings.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of high-quality publications describing criteria or tools for diagnosing lower-limb cellulitis. Future studies using prospective designs, validated in both primary and secondary care settings, are needed. What's already known about this topic? Diagnosing lower-limb cellulitis on first presentation is challenging. Approximately one in three patients admitted from the emergency department with suspected lower-limb cellulitis do not have cellulitis and are given another diagnosis on discharge. Consequently, this results in potentially avoidable hospital admissions and the prescription of unnecessary antibiotics. There are no diagnostic criteria available for lower-limb cellulitis in the U.K. What does this study add? This systematic review has identified a key research gap in the diagnosis of lower-limb cellulitis. There is a current lack of robustly developed and validated diagnostic criteria or tools for use in clinical practice.

Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections: A Focused Review of Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, Operative Management, Antimicrobial Therapy, and Pediatrics

Background: Necrotizing fasciitis is a major health problem throughout the world. The purpose of this review is to assist providers with the care of these patients through a better understanding of the pathophysiology and management options. Methods: This is a collaborative review of the literature between members of the Surgical Infection Society of North America and World Society of Emergency Surgery. Results: Necrotizing fasciitis continues to be difficult to manage with the mainstay being early diagnosis and surgical intervention. Recognition of at-risk populations assists with the initiation of treatment, thereby impacting outcomes. Conclusions: Although there are some additional treatment strategies available, surgical debridement and antimicrobial therapy are central to the successful eradication of the disease process.

The SIARI Score: A Novel Decision Support Tool Outperforms LRINEC Score in Necrotizing Fasciitis

BACKGROUND

The Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) scoring system was developed to aid the diagnosis of necrotizing fasciitis and guide management [1].

AIM

To validate the LRINEC score and identify clinical predictors to develop a refined diagnostic scoring tool for the diagnosis of necrotizing fasciitis at Middlemore Hospital, New Zealand.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study of patients admitted to Middlemore Hospital with necrotizing fasciitis and severe cellulitis between January 2000 and December 2010. The LRINEC scores at admission were evaluated for performance in discriminating between cases of necrotizing fasciitis and severe cellulitis. Cases and controls were randomized into developmental and validation cohorts. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables for the diagnosis of necrotizing fasciitis was performed. The identified independent predictors were used to develop a new diagnostic scoring tool.

RESULTS

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (C-statistic) of a LRINEC score ≥6 for the diagnosis of necrotizing fasciitis was 0.679. The newly developed SIARI score [Site other than the lower limb, Immunosuppression, Age < 60 years, Renal impairment (creatinine > 141), and Inflammatory markers (CRP ≥ 150, WCC > 25] demonstrated superior diagnostic ability compared with the LRINEC score in both the developmental (C-statistic: 0.832 vs. 0.691, p < 0.001) and validation cohorts (C-statistic: 0.847 vs. 0.667, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The LRINEC score exhibited only modest discriminative performance in this cohort, while the SIARI score is a simplified tool that demonstrates superior diagnostic ability for detecting necrotizing fasciitis. Future external validation studies are required to confirm the trends observed in this study.

A Systematic Review of the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis Score and Its Utility in Orthopedics for Diagnosing Necrotizing Fasciitis in Adults

Given its association with trauma and surgery, necrotizing fasciitis is a disease orthopedists are likely to encounter. The laboratory risk indicator for necrotizing fasciitis score is an adjunct diagnostic test designed to help diagnose early necrotizing fasciitis infections, but studies evaluating the scoring system have reported conflicting results. The purpose of this systematic review was to provide clarity on the laboratory risk indicator for necrotizing fasciitis score's capabilities and when it is best used. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(3):e288-e294.].

Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections in the Vasculopathic Patient: Review of Literature

Background:

Necrotizing soft tissue infection is a surgical emergency associated with high mortality. Its presence in patients with risk factors for peripheral arterial disease such as diabetes mellitus is consistently associated with significantly poorer outcomes. Though it has been over a century since it was initially described in the literature, mortality rates remain high and treatment regimens are not standardized.

Materials and methods:

PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for articles pertaining to necrotizing soft tissue infections. Articles were screened for relevance with the intent to compare outcomes in prospective studies of patients with diabetes mellitus or peripheral arterial disease. Patient demographics, clinical findings, mortality, rates of amputation, and morbidity were intended to be compared.

Results:

857 articles were identified, 165 duplicates were removed, and 6 prospective trials were identified for inclusion. Due to significant paucity of data, patient heterogeneity, and lack of standardization for surgical management, a descriptive review of the literature in relation to necrotizing soft tissue infections was pursued, with a focus on high-risk patients with peripheral arterial disease or diabetes mellitus.

Conclusions:

Early aggressive surgical intervention or major amputation may reduce mortality at the cost of increased disability and poorer quality of life in the long term, and may be appropriate in vasculopaths with poorly controlled diabetes and rapidly progressive fulminant infection. However, there is a deficiency in high-level evidence supporting surgical decision-making in this setting, with no standardized protocols for amputation. Future research will be needed to clarify the patient population who would benefit from radical amputation versus intention for limb salvage.

Skin and Soft Tissue Infections in the Emergency Department

This article covers the diagnosis and treatment of skin and soft tissue infections commonly encountered in the emergency department: impetigo, cutaneous abscesses, purulent cellulitis, nonpurulent cellulitis, and necrotizing skin and soft tissue infections. Most purulent infections in the United States are caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. For abscesses, we emphasize the importance of incision and drainage. Nonpurulent infections are usually caused by streptococcal species and initial empiric antibiotics need not cover methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. For uncommon but potentially lethal necrotizing skin and soft tissue infections, the challenge is rapid diagnosis in the emergency department and prompt surgical exploration and debridement.

Necrotising fasciitis: a ticking time bomb?

Necrotising fasciitis (NF) is a destructive bacterial infection and has often been described in media reports as a 'flesh-eating disease', which if diagnosed late is associated with worse outcome. Unfortunately, diagnosing NF is difficult due to the similar presentation of NF compared with other types of skin and soft tissue infections. The early presentation of NF only shows tenderness, swelling, erythema and warm skin. Moreover, NF is normally accompanied with aberrant laboratory findings, mainly elevated C reactive protein (CRP) levels. In this case report we evaluate the diagnostic process of a patient with NF without aberrant infection parameters; both normal levels of CRP and white blood cell count were seen.