Introduction: To identify the predisposing factors, etiological and clinical characteristics as well as the Fournier’s gangrene (FG) severity index (FGSI) in the outcomes of patients with FG. Materials and Methods: The data from 71 patients diagnosed with FG in a period of 17 years were retrospectively reviewed for the age of the patient, their history, predisposing factors, etiology, prodromal symptoms, FGSI, culture results, hospitalization period, surgical interventions, responses to the therapy and complications. Results: All of the patients were Caucasian males, and the mean age was 61.3 (range 36–92) years. The mean duration from the onset of symptoms to surgery was 7.5 days. The mean hospitalization time was 27.4 days and the most common etiological factor for FG was a perineal abscess. The overall mortality rate was 29.6%. The relationship between the number of predisposing factors and mortality rates in patients with FG was the most statistically significant parameter (p = 0.001). Conclusions: Multiple predisposing factors predict a poor prognosis and correlate significantly with mortality. Extension of the disease and the FGSI score were not predictive of outcome. The most essential intervention for stopping the rapidly progressing infectious process of FG consists of early recognition of the disease, proper management of the predisposing factors and aggressive surgical debridement. Such an intervention can improve clinical outcomes.

Keywords:
Necrotizing fasciitis, Fournier’s gangrene, Predisposing factors, Epidemiology
1.
Laor E, Palmer LS, Tolia BM, Reid RE, Winter HI: Outcome prediction in patients with Fournier’s gangrene. J Urol 1995;154:89–92.
2.
Tuncel A, Aydin O, Tekdogan U, Nalcacioglu V, Capar Y, Atan A: Fournier’s gangrene: three years of experience with 20 patients and validity of the Fournier’s gangrene severity index score. Eur Urol 2006;50:838–843.
3.
Lujan Marco S, Budía A, Di Capua C, Broseta E, Jiménez CF: Evaluation of a severity score to predict the prognosis of Fournier’s gangrene. Br J Urol 2010;106:373–376.
4.
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;180:944–948.
5.
Kuo CF, Wang WS, Lee CM, Liu CP, Tseng HK: Fournier’s gangrene: ten-year experience in a medical center in northern Taiwan. J Microbiol Immunol Infec 2007;40:500–506.
6.
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;83:323–328.
7.
Eke N: Fournier’s gangrene: a review of 1,726 cases. Br J Surg 2000;87:718–728.
8.
Basoglu M, Gul O, Yildirgan I, Balik AA, Ozbey I, Oren D: Fournier’s gangrene: review of fifteen cases. Am Surg 1997;63:1019–1021.
9.
Villanueva-Sáenz E, Martínez Hernández-Magro P, Valdés Ovalle M, Montes Vega J, Alvarez-Tostado F JF: Experience in management of Fournier’s gangrene. Tech Coloproctol 2002;6:5–13.
10.
Altarac S, Katušin D, Crnica S, Papeš D, Rajković Z, Arslani N: Fournier’s gangrene: etiology and outcome analysis of 41 patients. Urol Int 2012;88:289–293.
11.
Sugihara T, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Fujimura T, Ohe K, Matsuda S, Fushimi K, Homma Y: Impact of surgical intervention timing on the case fatality rate for Fournier’s gangrene: an analysis of 379 cases. BJU Int DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11291.x.
12.
Chawla SN, Gallop C, Mydlo JH: Fournier’s gangrene: an analysis of repeated surgical debridement. Eur Urol 2003;43:572–575.
13.
Morpurgo E, Galandiuk S: Fournier’s gangrene. Surg Clin North Am 2002;82:1213–1224.
14.
Laucks SS: Fournier’s gangrene. Surg Clin North Am 1994;74:1339–1352.
15.
Rotondo N: Fournier’s gangrene: an unusual presentation of sepsis. J Emerg Med 2002;23:413–414.
16.
Yanar H, Taviloglu K, Ertekin C, Guloglu R, Zorba U, Cabioglu N, Baspinar I: Fournier’s gangrene: risk factors and strategies for management. World J Surg 2006;30:1750–1754.
17.
Gürdal M, Yücebas E, Tekin A, Beysel M, Aslan R, Sengör F: Predisposing factors and treatment outcome in Fournier’s gangrene. Analysis of 28 cases. Urol Int 2003;70:286–290.
18.
Ruiz-Tovar J, Córdoba L, Devesa JM: Prognostic factors in Fournier gangrene. Asian J Surg 2012;35:37–41.
19.
Roghmann F, von Bodman C, Löppenberg B, Hinkel A, Palisaar J, Noldus J: Is there a need for the Fournier’s gangrene severity index? Comparison of scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with Fournier’s gangrene. BJU Int DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X. 2012.11082.x.
20.
Lin E, Yang S, Chiu AW, Chow YC, Chen M, Lin WC, Chang HK, Hsu JM, Lo KY, Hsu HH: Is Fournier’s gangrene severity index useful for predicting outcome of Fournier’s gangrene? Urol Int 2005;75:119–122.
21.
Escobar SJ, Slade HJB, Hunt TK, Cianci P: Adjuvant hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) for necrotizing fasciitis reduces mortality and amputation rate. Undersea Hyperb Med Soc 2005;32:437–443.
22.
Passavanti G: Can hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HOT) have a place in the treatment of some urological diseases? Urologia 2010;77:257–262.
23.
Morgan MS: Diagnosis and management of necrotising fasciitis: a multiparametric approach. J Hosp Infect 2010;75:249–257.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.