Global patterns of necrotizing soft tissue infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Frequency, microbiology, and outcomes of necrotizing soft tissue infections vary based on locoregional and environmental factors; however, there has been no global survey of these patterns. We performed a systematic review/meta-analysis on published reports of necrotizing soft tissue infections from across the globe. METHODS: Peer-reviewed empirical studies examining rates of polymicrobial and monomicrobial necrotizing soft tissue infections with microbial isolation and overall mortality rate were extracted along with geographic location using PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, and Web of Science. Random-effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed, adjusting for publication bias. Meta-regression analyses examined moderator effects of risk factors. RESULTS: One hundred and five studies (8,718 total patients) were included. Pooled prevalence of polymicrobial and monomicrobial infections were 53% and 37.9%, respectively. Truncal necrotizing soft tissue infections were commonly polymicrobial (P < .001), whereas monomicrobial infections prevailed in extremities (P = .008). Global prevalence of monomicrobial necrotizing soft tissue infections was observed to increase by 1.1% annually (P = .003). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common organism globally and in North America, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, followed by Streptococcus pyogenes and Escherichia coli. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus accounted for 16% of necrotizing soft tissue infections globally. Overall mortality was 23.1%, observed to decline globally over the last decade (P = .020). No regional differences were noted for mortality. CONCLUSION: Although polymicrobial infections remain predominant worldwide, the incidence of monomicrobial infections is increasing. The observed decline in necrotizing soft tissue infection-related mortality is encouraging and may reflect advances in management, despite major variations in available healthcare resources globally.

Perioperative Care Considerations and Management of Complications Involving Surgical and Technology Procedures.

Technology impacts the lives of everyone nowadays and has had perhaps a greater impact on the lives of facial plastic surgeons and the patients they seek to help with both surgery and procedures. This article will discuss modern technology's impact on intervening in the aging process including technology used for facial and skin rejuvenation and reconstruction concentrating on the techniques and care to minimize complications as well as dealing with complication from the treatments.

Larval therapy for leg ulcers (VenUS II): randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of larval therapy with a standard debridement technique (hydrogel) for sloughy or necrotic leg ulcers. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three armed randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Community nurse led services, hospital wards, and hospital outpatient leg ulcer clinics in urban and rural settings, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 267 patients with at least one venous or mixed venous and arterial ulcer with at least 25% coverage of slough or necrotic tissue, and an ankle brachial pressure index of 0.6 or more. INTERVENTIONS: Loose larvae, bagged larvae, and hydrogel. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to healing of the largest eligible ulcer. Secondary outcomes were time to debridement, health related quality of life (SF-12), bacterial load, presence of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, adverse events, and ulcer related pain (visual analogue scale, from 0 mm for no pain to 150 mm for worst pain imaginable). RESULTS: Time to healing was not significantly different between the loose or bagged larvae group and the hydrogel group (hazard ratio for healing using larvae v hydrogel 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.68; P=0.54). Larval therapy significantly reduced the time to debridement (2.31, 1.65 to 3.2; P<0.001). Health related quality of life and change in bacterial load over time were not significantly different between the groups. 6.7% of participants had MRSA at baseline. No difference was found between larval therapy and hydrogel in their ability to eradicate MRSA by the end of the debridement phase (75% (9/12) v 50% (3/6); P=0.34), although this comparison was underpowered. Mean ulcer related pain scores were higher in either larvae group compared with hydrogel (mean difference in pain score: loose larvae v hydrogel 46.74 (95% confidence interval 32.44 to 61.04), P<0.001; bagged larvae v hydrogel 38.58 (23.46 to 53.70), P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Larval therapy did not improve the rate of healing of sloughy or necrotic leg ulcers or reduce bacterial load compared with hydrogel but did significantly reduce the time to debridement and increase ulcer pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55114812 and National Research Register N0484123692.

Indications de l'oxygénothérapie hyperbare: mise à jour / Indications for hyperbaric oxygen therapy: update

INTRODUCTION: Dans la première moitié du XXe siècle, l'oxygénothérapie hyperbare (OHB) fut utilisée pour le traitement des accidents de décompression. D'autres indications se sont ajoutées au fil des ans, de sorte que l'OHB est aujourd'hui recommandée par l'Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Committee de l'Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society (UHMS) pour prévenir ou traiter les 13 affections suivantes: 1) les accidents de décompression; 2) l'embolie gazeuse; 3) l'intoxication au monoxyde de carbone; 4) les radionécroses; 5) les plaies réfractaires; 6) les brûlures thermiques; 7) les problèmes de greffes de peau et de tissus; 8) la gangrène gazeuse; 9) les infections nécrosantes des tissus mous; 10) l'ostéomyélite réfractaire; 11) l'abcès intracrânien; 12) les lésions par écrasement, les syndromes compartimentaux et les traumatismes ischémiques aigus; et 13) les anémies particulières. Toutefois, à l'exception des situations d'urgence comme les accidents de décompression et les embolies gazeuses, les applications de l'OHB demeurent controversées dans la littérature scientifique. Dans ce contexte, le ministre de la Santé et des Services sociaux a demandé à l'Agence d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'intervention en santé (AETMIS) de revoir l'état actuel des connaissances sur l'utilisation de l'OHB pour la prévention et le traitement de ces 13 affections. Plus précisément, il désire savoir si depuis la publication du rapport du Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la santé (CETS, le prédécesseur de l'AETMIS) en 2000, de nouvelles recherches ont donné des résultats probants quant à l'efficacité de cette technologie et si d'autres indications peuvent s'ajouter aux 13 premières. Rappelons que l'AETMIS a produit récemment deux rapports sur la place de l'OHB dans la prise en charge de la paralysie cérébrale et de l'autisme, deux indications non reconnues par les sociétés savantes. RÉSULTATS: Les études quantitatives et qualitatives publiées depuis 2000 sur les 13 indications et quelques autres affections traitées avec l'OHB ont été analysées. En ce qui concerne le traitement de la surdité cochléaire soudaine idiopathique, les connaissances actuelles indiquent que l'OHB réduirait significativement la perte d'audition dans les premières semaines suivant son apparition. Cependant, l'importance clinique de ce gain reste incertaine et ne peut donc justifier, pour le moment, le recours systématique à l'OHB sans l'appui de nouvelles études. Par contre, les experts de l'ECHM maintiennent la recommandation de 1994, qui préconise l'OHB pour le traitement de cette affection, jusqu'à ce qu'une étude européenne en cours sur le sujet soit terminée. Enfin, la place de l'OHB dans la prise en charge de la paralysie cérébrale et de l'autisme a été examinée de façon exhaustive dans deux rapports récents (2007) de l'AETMIS : selon l'état actuel des connaissances, ces applications restent expérimentales et la démonstration de leur efficacité nécessite des essais cliniques comparatifs rigoureux. CONCLUSION: L'objectif principal de ce rapport était de mettre à jour le précédent rapport du CETS publié en 2000 sur les indications reconnues de l'oxygénothérapie hyperbare (OHB). Étant donné la rareté de nouvelles études et la faible qualité de plusieurs d'entre elles, l'AETMIS a appuyé en grande partie son évaluation sur des consensus d'experts, dont les deux principaux sont issus de l'Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Committee de l'Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society (UHMS) et de l'European Committee for Hyperbaric Medicine (ECHM). Au terme de son évaluation, l'AETMIS conclut que les indications recommandées de l'oxygénothérapie hyperbare demeurent semblables, dans leur ensemble, bien que des précisions se soient ajoutées. Selon les données probantes (regroupées selon trois niveaux de preuve : A - élevé, B - moyen et C - faible), la liste des indications se présente maintenant comme suit: I. Indication recommandée en prévention: Ostéoradionécrose après une extraction dentaire en zone irradiée (niveau de preuve B; aucune nouvelle donnée). II. Indications recommandées en 1re intention de traitement: Accidents de décompression (niveau de preuve C) Embolie gazeuse artérielle ou veineuse compliquée (niveau de preuve C; aucune nouvelle donnée). III. Indications recommandées en 2e ou en 3e intention de traitement: Intoxication au monoxyde de carbone (niveau de preuve B) Gangrène gazeuse (niveau de preuve C; aucune nouvelle donnée). Nécroses infectieuses autres que la gangrène gazeuse (niveau de preuve C; aucune nouvelle donnée) Ostéoradionécrose mandibulaire, radionécrose des tissus mous et des greffes musculocutanées après une chirurgie majeure en zone irradiée, rectite hémorragique postradique (niveau de preuve B) et cystite hémorragique postradique (niveau de preuve C; aucune nouvelle donnée) Plaies réfractaires (lésions diabétiques, ulcères veineux de jambes) (niveau de preuve B) Greffes cutanées et musculocutanées en zone ischémique (niveau de preuve B; aucune nouvelle donnée) Ostéomyélite réfractaire (niveau de preuve C) Abcès intracrânien (niveau de preuve C) Lésions ischémiques et traumatiques : lésions par écrasement, syndrome compartimental et autres traumatismes ischémiques aigus (niveau de preuve B; aucune nouvelle donnée). IV. Indications recommandées en traitement optionnel: Brûlures thermiques (niveau de preuve C; aucune nouvelle donnée) Anémies particulières (niveau de preuve C; aucune nouvelle donnée). Pour la plupart de ces indications, les paramètres d'administration de l'OHB (durée d'exposition optimale, pression, fréquence des séances) restent à confirmer. Enfin, selon l'ECHM, l'OHB peut être un traitement optionnel de la surdité cochléaire soudaine idiopathique dans les premières semaines suivant son apparition (niveau de preuve B). Toutefois, selon la présente évaluation, de nouvelles études sont nécessaires pour justifier le recours systématique à l'OHB pour cette surdité particulière, puisque l'importance clinique des bénéfices obtenus reste incertaine. Pour d'autres affections, les données disponibles ne permettent pas de confirmer l'efficacité de l'OHB : il s'agit des affections malignes, des blessures sportives, du syndrome coronarien aigu, de la chirurgie cardiopulmonaire, des migraines et des céphalées, de la paralysie de Bell, des accidents vasculaires cérébraux et des traumatismes crâniens, et de la sclérose en plaques. Toutefois, le consensus d'experts de l'ECHM précise que l'OHB peut être un traitement optionnel du neuroblastome de stade IV, de la pneumatose kystique de l'intestin et de l'affection ophtalmique ischémique aiguë. Enfin, dans deux rapports récents (2007), l'AETMIS a déjà conclu que l'OHB constitue un traitement expérimental de la paralysie cérébrale et de l'autisme, deux indications aussi non reconnues par les sociétés savantes. Force est de constater que peu d'indications de l'oxygénothérapie hyperbare ont fait l'objet de recherches rigoureuses et que les données probantes sont rares. Il est clair que certaines affections ne se prêtent pas facilement à des recherches pour des raisons éthiques. Les consensus d'experts, bien que non complètement concordants, constituent donc l'assise principale qui appuie et justifie le recours à l'OHB pour une majorité d'indications cliniques. Ces consensus d'experts ouvrent également des avenues intéressantes à de nouvelles recherches de meilleure qualité méthodologique et à des expériences cliniques futures.

INTRODUCTION: During the first half of the 20th century, hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy was used to treat decompression sickness. Other indications have been added over the years, with the result that the Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Committee of the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society (UHMS) now recommends HBO therapy for the prevention or treatment of the following 13 conditions: 1) decompression sickness; 2) gas embolism; 3) carbon monoxide poisoning; 4) radionecrosis; 5) problem wounds; 6) thermal burns; 7) skin and tissue graft problems; 8) gas gangrene; 9) necrotizing soft-tissue infections; 10) refractory osteomyelitis; 11) intracranial abscess; 12) crush injuries, compartment syndromes and acute traumatic ischemia; and 13); exceptional blood loss anemias. However, with the exception of emergency situations such as decompression sickness and gas embolism, the applications of HBO therapy are still debated in the scientific literature. In this context, the Minister of Health and Social Services asked the Agence d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'intervention en santé (AETMIS) to review the current state of knowledge concerning the use of HBO therapy to prevent and treat these 13 conditions. More specifically, it would like to know if, since the publication of the report by the Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la santé (CETS, AETMIS's predecessor) in 2000, new research has yielded any evidence regarding the efficacy of this technology and if other indications could be added to these 13. It will be noted that AETMIS recently produced two reports on the role of HBO therapy in managing cerebral palsy and autism, two indications that are not recognized by the learned societies. RESULTS: The quantitative and qualitative studies published since 2000 on the 13 indications and a few other conditions treated with HBO therapy were analyzed. With regard to the treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, the current knowledge indicates that HBO therapy would significantly reduce hearing loss during the first few weeks following its occurrence. However, the clinical importance of this gain is uncertain and cannot, therefore, justify, at this time, the systematic use of HBO therapy without the support of new studies. However, the ECHM's experts maintain the 1994 recommendation, which advises the use of HBO therapy to treat this condition, until an ongoing European study on this matter is completed. Lastly, the role of HBO therapy in managing cerebral palsy and autism is exhaustively examined in two recent AETMIS reports (2007). Based on the current state of knowledge, these applications are still experimental, and rigorous controlled clinical trials are needed to demonstrate their efficacy. CONCLUSION: The main objective of this report was to update the previous report (published by CETS in 2000) on the recognized indications for hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy. Given the paucity of new studies and the fact that a number of them are of poor quality, AETMIS has, to a large extent, based its assessment on expert consensus, the two main ones being from the Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Committee of the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society (UHMS) and the European Committee for Hyperbaric Medicine (ECHM). At the end of its assessment, AETMIS concludes that, on the whole, the recommended indications for hyperbaric oxygen therapy remain the same, although there is now additional information. Based on the evidence (classified into three levels: A - high; B - medium; C - low), the list of indications is now as follows: I. Recommended indication for prevention: Osteoradionecrosis after tooth extraction in an irradiated area (level of evidence: B; no new data). II. Recommended indications as first-line therapy: Decompression sickness (level of evidence: C). Complicated venous or arterial gas embolism (level of evidence: C; no new data). III. Recommended indications as second- or third-line therapy: Carbon monoxide poisoning (level of evidence: B). Gas gangrene (level of evidence: C; no new data). Infectious necroses other than gas gangrene (level of evidence: C; no new data). Mandibular osteoradionecrosis, radionecrosis of soft tissues and musculocutaneous grafts after major surgery in an irradiated area, hemorrhagic radiation rectitis (level of evidence: B) and hemorrhagic radiation cystitis (level of evidence: C; no new data). Problem wounds (diabetic lesions, venous leg ulcers) (level of evidence: B). Skin and musculocutaneous grafts in ischemic areas (level of evidence: B; no new data). Refractory osteomyelitis (level of evidence: C). Intracranial abscess (level of evidence: C). Ischemic and traumatic lesions: crush injuries, compartment syndromes and other acute traumatic ischemia (level of evidence: B; no new data). IV. Recommended indications as optional therapy: Thermal burns (level of evidence: C; no new data). Specific anemias (level of evidence: C; no new data). For most of these indications, the parameters for administering HBO therapy (optimum duration of exposure, pressure, frequency of sessions) have yet to be determined. Lastly, according to the ECHM, HBO therapy can be an optional treatment modality for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss during the first few weeks following its occurrence (level of evidence: B). However, according to this assessment report, new studies are required in order to justify the systematic use of HBO therapy for this particular type of hearing loss, since the clinical importance of the benefits that it confers is uncertain. For other conditions, it cannot be established from the available evidence that HBO therapy is effective. They are malignant conditions, sports injuries, acute coronary syndrome, cardiopulmonary surgery, migraine, Bell's palsy, head injury, stroke and multiple sclerosis. However, the ECHM expert consensus states that HBO therapy may be an optional treatment for stage IV neuroblastoma, pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis, and acute ischemic ophthalmological disorders. Lastly, in two recent reports (2007), AETMIS concludes that HBO therapy is an experimental treatment for cerebral palsy and autism, two indications that are also not recognized by the learned societies. It should be noted that few indications for hyperbaric oxygen therapy have been rigorously studied and that the evidence is scarce. Obviously, for ethical reasons, certain conditions are not easily amenable to scientific research. Although they are not entirely concordant, the expert consensus are thus the main foundation for supporting and justifying the use of HBO therapy for most of the clinical indications. These expert consensuses are also opening up interesting avenues for new studies of better methodological quality and future clinical experiments.

Necrotizing pneumonia in children.

AIM: Clinical features and outcome of 36 patients with necrotizing pneumonia (NP) as well as 36 children with parapneumonic effusions (PPE) and 36 with severe control pneumonia (CP) were investigated. The mean age of the patients in the NP, PPE and CP groups were similar (3.8 +/- 3.3 (mean +/- SD), 4.2 +/- 3.0 and 4.2 +/- 3.0 y, respectively (p > 0.05)). The duration of symptoms at presentation were 11.9 +/- 8.5, 9.2 +/- 7.2 and 6 +/- 3.6 d, respectively (p < 0.01). The diagnosis of NP was established by computerized tomography. The mean (mean +/- SD) laboratory results in patients with NP revealed a white blood cell (WBC) count of 19,300 +/- 8700/mm3, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of 71 +/- 22 mm/h, C-reactive protein (CRP) of 13.6 +/- 11.7 mg/dl and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) of 66 +/- 132 U/L. The values of WBC, ESR, CRP and AST in the NP group were significantly higher than those of the other groups (p < 0.001). The duration of hospitalization in the NP, PPE and CP groups was 26 +/- 9, 16 +/- 6 and 10 +/- 5 d, respectively (p < 0.001). The number of febrile days was 8 +/- 4, 4 +/- 3 and 3 +/- 3 (p < 0.001), and the duration of normalization of CRP was 14 +/- 4, 11 +/- 4 and 7 +/- 3 d (p < 0.001), respectively. The average cost of treatment was 3476 US dollars, 1646 US dollars and 844 US dollars, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: All NP patients except two (94%) were complicated with PPE. The effusion in patients with NP and PPE was complicated with bronchopleural fistula (55% and 0%, respectively, p < 0.001). Surgical treatment was required in 66%, 8% and 0% in patients with NP, PPE and CP, respectively (p < 0.001). The mortality rate was 5.5%, 2.7% and 0% (p > 0.05).

Hyperbaric oxygen use. Update 1984.

The fact that as many as 60 new hyperbaric oxygen chambers are being established each year in the United States indicates the extent of interest in this relatively new therapy. In 1983 the Hyperbaric Medicine Committee of the Undersea Medical Society revised its classification of conditions being treated by hyperbaric oxygen (HBO), dividing them into two categories: category 1, conditions for which HBO treatment is known to be effective and is third-party reimbursable, and category 2, conditions for which such treatment is unproved experimentally or clinically and is not reimbursable. In the future many of the conditions in category 2 may be reclassified as category 1, which would allow HBO treatment to be third-party reimbursable.