Comparison of LRINEC Scoring System with Finger Test and Histopathological Examination for Necrotizing Fasciitis

• Published in: Surgery journal (New York) Vol. 8; no. 1; pp. e1 - e7
• Main Authors: Kazi, Farah Naaz, Sharma, J.V., Ghosh, Shaurav, Prashanth, D., Raja, V. Om Pramod Kumar
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc 01.01.2022
• Subjects: finger test; histopathology; lrinec; necrotizing fasciitis; Original; Original Article; histopathology; Finger test; necrotizing fasciitis; LRINEC
• ISSN: 2378-5128; 2378-5136
• DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740629

Abstract Background  Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is a life-threatening condition requiring urgent attention. It is clinically difficult to diagnose, linked to severe systemic toxicity, and has poor prognosis. In 2001, Andreasen and coworkers described the “Finger test” for the diagnosis of NF. Subsequent studies have suggested early recognition and management of NF. In this study, we compare the LRINEC—Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis—scoring system with the “Finger test” and histopathological examination for diagnosis of NF. Results  In our study, LRINEC scoring system and Finger test are statistically significant in the diagnosis of NF. Males are more frequently affected, and the most common organism causing NF is Staphylococcus . Histopathology remained the gold standard for diagnosis of NF, while LRINEC score and Finger test were good diagnostic tools for early diagnosis, with sensitivities of 83.33 and 86.11%, respectively. Conclusion  LRINEC laboratory-based scoring system is easy and reliable diagnostic tool though histopathology remains the gold standard. There is statistically significant correlation between histopathology and laboratory criteria. LRINEC test is independently better than bedside Finger test alone or combined LRINEC and bedside Finger test.