Objective: To identify factors that dictate morbidity and mortality in patients with Fournier’s Gangrene and validate the Fournier gangrene severity index (FGSI). Materials and Methods: We prospectively studied 50 patients with FG from January 2016 to December 2016 pertaining to their presenting signs, intraoperative findings, and postoperative wound management and outcome. We also checked the power of the FGSI to predict the outcome of the patients in terms of mortality. Receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the optimum cutoff of FGSI score to predict mortality. Principle component analysis was performed to check for the possibility of reduction in the number of factors included in the FGSI. Results: The mean age at presentation was 53 ± 16 years with a mortality rate of 24%. Factors associated with mortality were increasing age (p = 0.0001), presence of diabetes (p = 0.002), bed-ridden status (p = 0.001), alcoholic liver disease (p = 0.005), altered international normalized ratio (p > 0.005), late presentation (p = 0.001), and a FGSI score of > 9 at admission (p = 0.004). The mean FGSI score among survivors was 4.39 ± 3.80 compared to 14.22 ± 3.93 among those who died. The area under the curve FGSI score to predict mortality at a cutoff of 9 was 0.961 (95% CI 0.910–1.000). Conclusion: Increasing age, diabetes, alcoholic liver disease, bed-ridden status, delayed hospital presentation, and an altered international normalized ratio at presentation are associated with higher mortality in FG. The FGSI at admission should be used to identify patients with serious prognosis requiring intensive care.

Keywords:
Fournier gangrene, Fournier gangrene severity index, Mortality
1.
Smith GL, Bunker CB, Dinneen MD. Fournier’s gangrene.
Br J Urol
. 1998 Mar; 81(3): 347–55.
2.
Laor E, Palmer LS, Tolia BM, Reid RE, Winter HI. Outcome prediction in patients with Fournier’s gangrene.
J Urol
. 1995 Jul; 154(1): 89–92.
3.
Eke N. Fournier’s gangrene: a review of 1726 cases.
Br J Surg
. 2000 Jun; 87(6): 718–28.
4.
Fournier JA. Jean-Alfred Fournier 1832-1914. Gangrène foudroyante de la verge (overwhelming gangrene). Sem Med 1883.
Dis Colon Rectum
. 1988 Dec; 31(12): 984–8.
5.
Sorensen MD, Krieger JN. Fournier’s Gangrene: Epidemiology and Outcomes in the General US Population.
Urol Int
. 2016; 97(3): 249–59.
6.
Vyas HG, Kumar A, Bhandari V, Kumar N, Jain A, Kumar R. Prospective evaluation of risk factors for mortality in patients of Fournier’s gangrene: A single center experience.
Indian J Urol
. 2013 Jul; 29(3): 161–5.
7.
Stephens BJ, Lathrop JC, Rice WT, Gruenberg JC. Fournier’s gangrene: historic (1764-1978) versus contemporary (1979-1988) differences in etiology and clinical importance.
Am Surg
. 1993 Mar; 59(3): 149–54.
8.
Yılmazlar T, Işık Ö, Öztürk E, Özer A, Gülcü B, Ercan İ. Fournier’s gangrene: review of 120 patients and predictors of mortality.
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg
. 2014 Sep; 20(5): 333–7.
9.
Martinschek A, Evers B, Lampl L, Gerngroß H, Schmidt R, Sparwasser C. Prognostic aspects, survival rate, and predisposing risk factors in patients with Fournier’s gangrene and necrotizing soft tissue infections: evaluation of clinical outcome of 55 patients.
Urol Int
. 2012; 89(2): 173–9.
10.
Jeong HJ, Park SC, Seo IY, Rim JS. Prognostic factors in Fournier gangrene.
Int J Urol
. 2005 Dec; 12(12): 1041–4.
11.
Clayton MD, Fowler JE Jr, Sharifi R, Pearl RK. Causes, presentation and survival of fifty-seven patients with necrotizing fasciitis of the male genitalia.
Surg Gynecol Obstet
. 1990 Jan; 170(1): 49–55.
12.
Benjelloun 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 Apr; 8(1): 13.
13.
Luján Marco S, Budía A, Di Capua C, Broseta E, Jiménez Cruz F. Evaluation of a severity score to predict the prognosis of Fournier’s gangrene.
BJU Int
. 2010 Aug; 106(3): 373–6.
14.
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.
15.
Heggers JP, Sazy JA, Stenberg BD, Strock LL, McCauley RL, Herndon DN, et al. Bactericidal and wound-healing properties of sodium hypochlorite solutions: the 1991 Lindberg Award.
J Burn Care Rehabil
. 1991 Sep-Oct; 12(5): 420–4.
16.
Uluğ M, Gedik E, Girgin S, Celen MK, Ayaz C. The evaluation of microbiology and Fournier’s gangrene severity index in 27 patients.
Int J Infect Dis
. 2009 Nov; 13(6):e424–30.
17.
Yeniyol CO, Suelozgen T, Arslan M, Ayder AR. Fournier’s gangrene: experience with 25 patients and use of Fournier’s gangrene severity index score.
Urology
. 2004 Aug; 64(2): 218–22.
18.
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 Sep; 180(3): 944–8.
19.
Ferreira PC, Reis JC, Amarante JM, Silva AC, Pinho CJ, Oliveira IC, et al. Fournier’s gangrene: a review of 43 reconstructive cases.
Plast Reconstr Surg
. 2007 Jan; 119(1): 175–84.
20.
Czymek R, Frank P, Limmer S, Schmidt A, Jungbluth T, Roblick U, et al. Fournier’s gangrene: is the female gender a risk factor?
Langenbecks Arch Surg
. 2010 Feb; 395(2): 173–80.
21.
Sarkut P, Işık Ö, Öztürk E, Gülcü B, Ercan İ, Yılmazlar T. Gender does not affect the prognosis of Fournier’s gangrene: a case-matched study.
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg
. 2016 Nov; 22(6): 541–4.
22.
Ong HS, Ho YH. Genitoperineal gangrene: experience in Singapore.
Aust N Z J Surg
. 1996 May; 66(5): 291–3.
23.
Spirnak JP, Resnick MI, Hampel N, Persky L. Fournier’s gangrene: report of 20 patients.
J Urol
. 1984 Feb; 131(2): 289–91.
24.
Mallikarjuna MN, Vijayakumar A, Patil VS, Shivswamy BS. Fournier’s Gangrene: current Practices.
ISRN Surg
. 2012; 2012: 942437.
25.
Hejase MJ, Simonin JE, Bihrle R, Coogan CL. Genital Fournier’s gangrene: experience with 38 patients.
Urology
. 1996 May; 47(5): 734–9.
26.
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
. 2012 Nov; 110(9): 1359–65.
27.
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 Apr-Jun; 54(2): 102–5.
28.
Theiss M, Hofmockel G, Frohmüller HG. Fournier’s gangrene in a patient with erectile dysfunction following use of a mechanical erection aid device.
J Urol
. 1995 Jun; 153(6): 1921–2.
29.
Walther PJ, Andriani RT, Maggio MI, Carson CC 3rd. Fournier’s gangrene: a complication of penile prosthetic implantation in a renal transplant patient.
J Urol
. 1987 Feb; 137(2): 299–300.
30.
Chantarasak ND, Basu PK. Fournier’s gangrene following vasectomy.
Br J Urol
. 1988 Jun; 61(6): 538–9.
31.
Woodside JR. Necrotizing fasciitis after neonatal circumcision.
Am J Dis Child
. 1980 Mar; 134(3): 301–2.
32.
Chernyadyev SA, Ufimtseva MA, Vishnevskaya IF, Bochkarev YM, Ushakov AA, Beresneva TA, et al. Fournier’s Gangrene: Literature Review and Clinical Cases.
Urol Int
. 2018; 101(1): 91–7.
33.
Palmer LS, Winter HI, Tolia BM, Reid RE, Laor E. The limited impact of involved surface area and surgical débridement on survival in Fournier’s gangrene.
Br J Urol
. 1995 Aug; 76(2): 208–12.
34.
Lin TY, Ou CH, Tzai TS, Tong YC, Chang CC, Cheng HL, et al. Validation and simplification of Fournier’s gangrene severity index.
Int J Urol
. 2014 Jul; 21(7): 696–701.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
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.