Early diagnosis of craniofacial necrotising fasciitis: Analysis of clinical risk factors

Secondary craniofacial necrotizing fasciitis from a distant septic emboli: A case report

BACKGROUND

Craniofacial necrotizing fasciitis (CNF) is an uncommon but fatal infection that can spread rapidly through the subfascial planes in the head and neck region. Symptoms usually progress rapidly, and early management is necessary to optimize outcomes.

CASE SUMMARY

A 43-year-old man visited our hospital with left hemifacial swelling involving the buccal and submandibular areas. The patient had fever for approximately 10 d before visiting the hospital, but did not report any other systemic symptoms. Computed tomography scan demonstrated an abscess with gas formation. After surgical drainage of the facial abscess, the patient’s systemic condition worsened and progressed to septic shock. Further examination revealed pulmonary and renal abscesses. Renal percutaneous catheter drainage was performed at the renal abscess site, which caused improvement of symptoms. The patient showed no evidence of systemic complications during the 4-mo post-operative follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

As the patient did not improve with conventional CNF treatment and symptoms only resolved after controlling the infection, the final diagnosis was secondary CNF with septic emboli. Aggressive surgical decompression is important for CNF management. However, if symptoms worsen despite early diagnosis and management, such as pus drainage and surgical intervention, clinicians should consider the possibility of a secondary abscess from internal organs.

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.