Jump to content

Talk:Necrotizing fasciitis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit from 203.36.44.13

[edit]

The last edit from 203.36.44.13 (replacing the entire article) sounds like a copyviolation. Can the author come out and state that there's no copyright violation involved? Thanks. Alex.tan 06:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question/challenge regarding reference to "Cabin Fever" movie

[edit]

Can it be confirmed that the movie actually is intended to depict necrotizing fasciitis (NF), specifically, rather than just some NF-like virus or bacteria? Having a hard time documenting that in searching interviews with the director (Eli Roth) online; also, the movie's official site refers to it as a virus, and NF is actually a bacterial disease. (I'm a survivor of the disease myself, so am hoping to not add to some of the hysteria and hyperbole surrounding it; but, if that was the movie's/director's intent, so be it, though I'd lean toward referring to the movie as portraying a similar type of affliction [albeit sensationally].) Thanks; relatively new WP user here, so apologies if I'm out of line in any way.

Thanks for you comments, I changed the sentence to:

A fictional virus with symptoms like necrotizing fasciitis featured in the modern horror classic Cabin Fever.

--nixie 05:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I can live with that; the real thing's bad enough, trust me.  :-) --Mattsen 06:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Mortality

[edit]

This article states the mortality rate from infection as both 25% and 20%. Please clarify. --Outlander 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC) haha, that was my question too. --Mtxoracle 22:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted that distant relative of Brett Hart because nobody knows him and nobody cares.

The article says that the infection often starts with a sore throat. In fact, it RARELY starts as a sore throat.

I call to attention the use of the word "top-notch"


Prognosis This disease is one of the fastest-spreading infections known as it spreads easily across the fascial plane within the subcutaneous tissue. For this reason, it is popularly called the "flesh-eating disease" and although rare, it became well-known to the public in the 1990s. Even with top-notch care today, the prognosis can be bleak, with a mortality rate of around 25% and severe disfigurement common in survivors. Mortality is nearly 100% if not properly treated.

The word is unprofessional and colloquial.

I suggest, and will implement the following change.

Prognosis This disease is one of the fastest-spreading infections known as it spreads easily across the fascial plane within the subcutaneous tissue. For this reason, it is popularly called the "flesh-eating disease" and although rare, it became well-known to the public in the 1990s. Even with today's modern medicine, the prognosis can be bleak, with a mortality rate of around 25% and severe disfigurement common in survivors. Mortality is nearly 100% if not properly treated.

come on, give the word a break and look at the contents of the article

Rephrase?

[edit]

"the antibiotics take a while to react to the bacteria" -- This phrasing strikes me as odd and possibly misleading, but I could be wrong. Are the medical professionals okay with this or should it be changed? -- 201.19.11.75 02:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does "this" refer to?

[edit]

In the sentence: "With medical assistance, such as antibiotics, this doesn't take a long time to process." What does this mean?Derekawesome (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

--Parallelized (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinked names (victims)

[edit]

Those that are not notable else: time these were removed (of course, if later citations are given to establish notabilty and their own entries, they can be replaced in the list). NF is 'rare' but the term is relative when it comes to clinical incidence - as a senior nurse in an inner-city British NHS hospital, I've personally seen 4 cases in the last 10 years. These days, gas gangrene is encountered even less, yet survivors aren't in themselves notable. I'll give it a few days, then make the changes as necessary. In some sections the style and grammar also needs a bit of a seeing-to: I'll fix that too. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Vaccine?

[edit]

Someone on a blog claimed a vaccine was in the works. Is there anything to the claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.42.129 (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Language

[edit]

In the intro section, we have a section going: " Type I describes a polymicrobial infection, whereas Type II describes a monomicrobial infection. Many types of bacteria can cause necrotizing fasciitis". Now, I would have to agree that this is correct, but I suggest that we tone down the medical lingua for a more readible text. I do not think that my own vocabulary is capable of just that, so I am just leaving this as a suggestion - any thoughts? T-roland (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

>> I think people sometimes get overly senstive to jargon. While it can be a problem sometimes, Wikipedia auto-bots are often wrong for going overboard and flagging pages for having too much jargon / technical terms. Here, a live person is worried about it and I think the worry is misplaced. Any English major could see that the categorization is based on a simple difference in the suffix. To make the contrast more obvious to a general reader, I added a hyphen between poly-microbial and mono-microbial. I also moved the sentences to follow the statement that many kinds of baceteria can cause NF. You have to use actual terms because when people encounter them, they want to know that they mean. A lay reader might have glossed over those multi-syllable words, but by making this change, it preserves the technical terms but it puts the text in a form that a lay reader will see easily and recognize that they're not really scary words, but can be parsed and understood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapabc (talk • contribs) 17:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

systemic causes

[edit]

This article is written in a way that I find highly misleading...it seems to treat this as a mystery infection that comes up as a result of trauma...but a lot of unanswered questions arise--why is it a "rare" infection? No explanation is given to the role that the immune system plays in preventing such infections. The word stem "immun" didn't even occur in the article except in an oblique popular culture reference to Star Trek.

The reason is that these sorts of infections are normally kept in check in otherwise healthy people. I added a single reference that discusses this but there's a lot of stuff out there and I think this material needs to be written more prominently into this page. Cazort (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nercotizing fasciitis is a flesh eating bacteria that eats ur face off then kills you because it stabs you in the brain with its many innteanea!!!! STAY INSIDEEEE!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.202.225.253 (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual References within the media

[edit]

I recently just watched the episode of Grey's Anatomy that involves the Necrotizing fasciitis case and was quite surprised not to come across it within this article, (I was surprised the infection even had a dedicated section to its portrayal within the media). After believing that it was a rather significant depiction of the infection, I have therefore generated my own summary of the infections' diagnosis and treatment as represented in the said episode and do hope readers agree it to be insightful and interesting, providing further 'research' material regarding the subject.

Pete. 05:32 4th January 2010

Maggot Debridement Therapy

[edit]

The article currently states "In necrotizing fasciitis, aggressive surgical debridement (removal of infected tissue) is always necessary to keep it from spreading and is the only treatment available. [Emphasis mine]" however, Maggot Therapy is another viable treatment, particularly in cases where physical debridement is unsuccessful. References: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/555303 http://www.woundsresearch.com/article/6981 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hed.20092/abstract http://www.bterfoundation.org/indexfiles/MDT.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegamormegil (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Person Removed

[edit]

I removed the reference to "Ricky Snotrag" on the list of notable persons. At the same time this info was added to the Wikipedia entry, it was posted on a "NO Ricky" Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/NO-Ricky/165263006865415) and was most likely vandalism. Clockster (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this edit was all vandalism, I reverted it back. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This needs fixing

[edit]

We read:

"Mortality rates have been noted as high as 73 percent if left untreated.[6] Without surgery and medical assistance, such as antibiotics, the infection will rapidly progress and will eventually lead to death."

The former sentence contradicts the latter, and vice-versa.

108.219.38.25 (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Sources

[edit]

This article is supposed to be about the disease necrotizing fasciitis not about MRSA. While MRSA is a possible source of necrotizing fasciitis a section on the possible sources of MRSA is not appropriate for this article. Misleading in that information about MRSA while peripherally related to NF and one of mulitple possible vectors for NF the content of the section is only relevant to MRSA and belongs in that article and not this one. Suggest rework of the section?162.111.235.36 (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Is this bacteria any way related to the bacteria that caused leprosy? Doesn't it have the same characteristics? danadice4life@msn.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.69.24 (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Most NF is caused by Gram positive bacteria, not by M. leprae or other mycobacteriae. JFW | T@lk 12:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical review

[edit]

GAS-NF and its relation to trauma. Lancet Infect Dis doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70922-3 JFW | T@lk 12:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bacteria/Possible Sources

[edit]

The only bacteria listed are MRSA but as far as I know the most common bacteria group causing necrotizing fasciitis is invasive streptococcus A. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828232/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.224.173 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Necrotizing fasciitis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HBO for nec fash

[edit]

I know hyperbaric O2 is controversial for nec fash, but I don't know a good citation off the top of my head to capture that point. Maybe someone else can fine one, and find a political way of saying that.

I amputated someones leg for nec fash last week. Bad disease.

BakerStMD 03:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few reviews that might help with this point and discuss HBOT's role as ill-defined and poorly investigated for nec fasc:

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21767158 2. http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.liboff.ohsu.edu/pubmed/20668422 3. http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.liboff.ohsu.edu/pubmed/25879088 (2015 Cochrane review found no RCTs or pseudo-RCTs investigating HBOT's role in treatment of nec fasc) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Necrotizing fasciitis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not mention Africans and Indians feel this disease is needed?

[edit]

And do have ways to spread it out? It has always occurred in their natural ambiences and they all seem to miss it overtly. Treatment is hard to come by, diagnosis is omitted, it is treated as cellulitis and there is a downright negative to actually do anything other than amputation because of African and Indian and Arab (Shariah) pressures. Mentioning antibiotic resistance organisms and not mentioning any useful medication link also adds to the primitive, final atmosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.150.166 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hypochlorous acid irrigation

[edit]

"Super oxidized waters" (SOW) refers to a new class of broad spectrum disinfectants that inhibit a wide range of essential microbial process, while causing relatively little damage to human cells.[1] Most SOWs (that I've looked at, anyway) use hypochloruos acid and some form of electro-chemical processing to maintain a ph neutral, highly oxidizing solution. A number of such agents, sold under brand names including (but not limited to) Microcyn, Dermacyn, and NeutroPhase are already FDA approved for cleaning/debriding wounds.[2] [3] [4]

There's in vitro evidence that a solution of 0.01% pure hypochlorous acid (NeutroPhase) can deactivate many of the superantigens and toxins necrotizing fasciitis bacteria produce and provide protection to human lung epithelial cells exposed to bacterial toxins.[5] There are also several case reports of hypochloruos acid irrigation combined with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT described here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz8ppbbc6aw) providing benefit to patients with necrotizing fasciitis.[6] [7] [8] [9] Note that reference 9 isn't a full case report, but a video of a surgeon describing his experience with Microcyn in a case of necrotizing fasciitis. refs 7 & 9 did not use NPWT. It's also the only case where Dermacyn was used, rather than NeutroPhase.

All in all, I don't think this is great evidence that SOWs containing hypochlorous acid are particularly effective for treating NF, but given that many of the agents in question are approved by the FDA for surgical debridement, it seems like the worst that can happen is nothing. Given the state of the evidence as it appears to me and my estimate of the potential risk/reward for the therapy, I think it reasonable to add a small blerb about hypochlorous acid in the "Other" part of the "Treatment" section.

A few questions:

Most of the NF-specific evidence concerns NeutroPhase, rather than SOWs in general. However, the vast majority of SOWs contain hypochlorous acid, which is the only ingredient in NeutroPhase. To what degree should the evidence about NeutroPhase be taken as evidence of SOW effectiveness?

Also, can I cite the youtube video in the article, alongside the other case reports? Qupope (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Nevermind. I came across the secondary/primary source requirements while reading the talk page of another article. Everything here is a primary source, so I've unmade my edits to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qupope (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEJM

[edit]

Review doi:10.1056/NEJMra1600673 JFW | T@lk 09:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Role of CB4P

[edit]

Initial edit here. Some additional sources:

Not sure whether that's enough, if not I'll look for more sources Genetics4good (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292489936_Expert_Recommendations_for_the_Use_of_Hypochlorous_Solution_Science_and_Clinical_Application
  2. ^ https://www.drugs.com/history/microcyn.html
  3. ^ https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/505258
  4. ^ https://novabay.com/pressreleases/novabay-pharmaceuticals-receives-additional-fda-510k-clearance-for-neutrophase-wound-cleanser/
  5. ^ http://www.woundsresearch.com/article/treatment-acute-necrotizing-fasciitis-using-negative-pressure-wound-therapy-and-adjunctive-n
  6. ^ http://www.woundsresearch.com/article/treatment-acute-necrotizing-fasciitis-using-negative-pressure-wound-therapy-and-adjunctive-n
  7. ^ http://www.americaneyestudyclub.org/assets/docs/AnnualMeetings/2016-mtg/paradigm_shift_in_the_treatment_of_periocular_necrotizing_fasciitis%201.pdf
  8. ^ http://www.woundsresearch.com/article/flow-through-instillation-hypochlorous-acid-treatment-necrotizing-fasciitis
  9. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b0gp2C8R5E

Medical imaging

[edit]

Ref says "Imaging is very useful to confirm the diagnosis", not sure why this was changed to " Medical imaging is seldom helpful in confirming the diagnosis"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page Image

[edit]

Remember that page images show up even if just hovering over a blue text link. This particular page (among others) has required us to blacklist wikipedia in our school for images. Please consider changing the top level page image to something less... disturbing - even if it is accurate.

WikiProject Editing

[edit]

Hello World!

I am a fourth year medical student taking a course on Wikipedia editing, and I have chosen "Necrotizing fasciitis" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrotizing_fasciitis) as the article I wish to edit.  This article is well-written on the whole, but I believe some paragraphs need moving around for better organization, and citations need to be updated as well.  Certain sections, for example the "scoring system" or "antibiotics," could also use expansion. My workplan is as follows:

Mon 12/2

  • Formulate workplan
  • Begin reviewing and updating citations
  • Begin reorganizing sections for improved clarity

Thurs 12/5

  • Continue reviewing and updating citations
  • Continue reorganizing sections
  • Begin writing and simplifying medical jargon

Wed 12/11

  • Continue writing and simplifying medical jargon
  • Begin updating images/media

Mon 12/16

  • Complete peer review
  • Begin incorporating changes per peer review

Fri 12/20 Course Wrap-up

  • Final check for citations, coherence, readability, etc.

I don't have much experience editing Wikipedia, but I will certainly put in the effort to learn and improve. I look forward to receiving input from fellow Wikipedians, so if you have any feedback, concerns, or topics you would also like me to focus on in my edits, please let me know! Thanks y'all. Operapear (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review:
Lead Section
Feedback: This is a really well-done summary! It covers all the key points clearly and concisely.
Suggestions: Since this section is meant for a general audience, it might help to simplify or explain a few of the medical terms a bit more, such as “virulence factors” and the phrase “severe disease of sudden onset that spreads rapidly,” to make it easier for readers without a medical background to understand.
----
Signs and Symptoms
Feedback: This section is really strong! The bullet points make the information easy to follow and understand the evolution of symptoms, and the images with detailed captions are super helpful.
Suggestions: You’ve done a great job explaining terms like “Bullae (blisters)” and “Crepitus (palpable gas in tissues),” which makes the content easier to understand. A couple more terms could benefit from the same approach, such as “copious purulent and malodorous discharge, especially at a surgical site” and “skin necrosis.”
----
Causes
Feedback: This section does a great job explaining risk factors, prevention, and causes of infection. It’s super clear and easy to follow. Great use of linking to other wiki articles as well!
Suggestions: Some of the medical terms could be simplified a bit to make it more reader-friendly. For example: “Lacerations,” “Injury of mucous membrane,” and even “vulnerable populations” could be simplified to “populations at higher risk.” There’s also some detailed info that might go a bit beyond what’s needed for a wiki page. Totally up to you, but you might consider trimming or summarizing parts like the explanation about “NSAIDs inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and cyclooxygenase-2 enzymes” and the bit about “insufficient evidence for immunocompromised individuals benefiting from antibiotics prophylactically.” These are super interesting points but might be a bit much for a general audience.
----
Diagnosis
Feedback: This section is fantastic! You’ve taken a really complicated topic and broken it down so clearly. I love how you go through each type of imaging, explaining how it helps, what findings are characteristic of NF, and any limitations. You do a great job keeping it understandable without diving too deep into the technical details. The images are super helpful too! Also, the table for the LRINEC Scoring System is wonderful!
Suggestions: There are a few phrases, like “modalities” or “comorbidity in patients vulnerable to acquiring NF,” that could be simplified a bit to make it more accessible. But honestly, I know this section is tricky to write without some medical terms, so no pressure to change it. It’s already very well done!
----
Treatment
Feedback: This is such a well-written and comprehensive section. Great job!
Suggestions: A few terms like “presumptive,” “wet-to-dry dressings,” and “colostomy” might be simplified a bit to make the section easier to understand for a general audience. That said, I totally get that it’s tough to avoid medical terms in this context as well! Also, adding a link again to the wiki page for Fournier's gangrene when it’s mentioned again could be helpful.
----
Epidemiology
Feedback: This section is really well-written and is clear and focused!
Suggestions: None
----
History, Society, and Culture
Feedback: These sections are really interesting and add a lot of depth to the article!
Suggestions: None
----
Overall Feedback:
I really like the structure of the article. It’s comprehensive, well-organized, and easy to follow.
There are a few areas that might be a bit extraneous, and I’ve addressed those in my section-specific feedback. That said, I can’t think of anything that needs to be added!
The prose and grammar are excellent, and I’ve made a few suggestions to enhance readability in certain sections. The tone is neutral throughout, which is great, and the citations are well-formatted and pulled from preferred sources.
You’ve done an awesome job sticking to your workplan and tackling such a complicated topic. It’s clear you’ve put a lot of thought into breaking it down for a general audience. Great work! Ss444431 (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: WikiMed Nov-Dec 2024 UCSF SOM

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 November 2024 and 21 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Operapear (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ss444431.

— Assignment last updated by AminMDMA (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gas gangrene pathogenesis

[edit]

Hi all! I wanted to let everyone know before I do this major edit on the page. I noticed that for the "bacteria" section under "Causes," there's a lot written on Clostridium toxins and pathogenesis of gas gangrene even though Clostridium doesn't make up a large percentage of necrotizing fasciitis infections. I've decided to move these two paragraphs to the Gas gangrene wiki page, where the information would be more relevant. If anyone has any further suggestions, please let me know! I would love to hear other people's thoughts on this. Thanks :) Operapear (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Necrotizing_fasciitis&oldid=1262713160"