ABSTRACT
Fournier's gangrene (FG) is a rare form of necrotizing fasciitis of the perineal, genital, or perianal region. It is characterized by an aggressive course and high mortality rate, over 20%. FG demands immediate treatment including resuscitation maneuvers, intravenous antibiotic therapy and early surgical debridement. Background/Objectives: The gold-standard treatment for FG is surgical reconstruction. However, up to date, no precise guidelines exist. Thus, we decided to systematically review the literature, focusing on FG contemporary approaches to reconstructive surgery, aiming to analyze the various reconstructive strategies and their specific indications. Methods: A systematic review was carried out according to the PRISMA statement by searching various databases from April 2014 to April 2024, using the terms ''Fournier Gangrene OR Fournier Gangrene Reconstruction OR Fournier Gangrene Treatment OR Fournier Gangrene Plastic Surgery OR Necrotizing Fasciitis OR Necrotizing Fasciitis AND Reconstruction". The eligibility criteria included original studies aimed at discussing FG reconstruction with at least three clinical cases. Results: The final synthesis included 38 articles, and 576 reconstructions were described. Of these, 77.6% were minimally invasive strategies (direct closure, secondary healing, grafts, and local random flaps), while more invasive reconstructions (loco-regional flaps based on known vascular anatomy) were adopted in 22.4%. No free flaps were reported. Conclusions: FG requires immediate medical interventions including broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, surgical debridement, adjuvant therapies, and reconstructive surgeries. Taking into account the anatomical characteristics of the inguinal-crural region, skin grafts and local random flaps could offer versatile and effective reconstructions for most FG cases, while the more invasive strategies should be reserved for very few cases. Future research is warranted to define an FG dedicated reconstruction protocol.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of US-confirmed enthesitis in a cohort of patients with SLE and to analyse the clinical associations to enthesitis during the course of SLE. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of the SLE cohort of the Lupus Unit of the Careggi University Hospital, US examinations of SLE patients presenting with tender and/or swollen joints were retrieved to assess the presence of enthesitis. Patients with US-proven enthesitis were compared with SLE controls with tender and/or swollen joints who showed no US evidence of enthesitis. Clinical and laboratory features were compared at disease onset and during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 400 patients fulfilling EULAR/ACR classification criteria for SLE were assessed. Of these, 106 underwent articular US examination. Evidence of enthesitis was found in 31/106 (29.2%) patients. Seventy-one patients without US-enthesitis were included as controls; four were excluded due to lack of follow-up data. Laboratory and clinical features were comparable between cases and controls at disease onset. Throughout a median follow-up of 10.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 8.3-23.3) years for cases and 12.4 (IQR 7.2-13.3) years for controls, patients with enthesitis were less likely to develop renal involvement (22.6% vs 46.5%, P = 0.028) and failed B cell depletion more frequently (75.0% vs 0%). CONCLUSION: In SLE patients with clinically active joints, US-proven enthesitis is a fairly common finding. Enthesitis in SLE could be the hallmark of a distinct disease phenotype with less renal involvement, more arthritis and low response to anti-CD 20 therapy, potentially requiring a tailored treatment.