Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 813

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Fournier's gangrene: a review of 1726 cases

Eke, N·2000·Journal of British Surgery

Abstract

Background: Although there is much consensus, certain controversies exist regarding the management of Fournier's gangrene. Method: Publications in English on Fournier's gangrene from January 1950 to September 1999 were obtained through the Medline database and relevant reference lists in publications. It was possible to identify 1726 cases for study. Data extracted for review included country of reported cases, number of patients in each report and relevant clinical features. Results: Fournier's gangrene occurs worldwide. However, its definition has generated considerable controversy as efforts are made to refine the original description in the light of increasingly understood aetiological factors. Attempts to classify the disease into primary and secondary forms have not been successful. The basic pathological process, necrotizing fasciitis, has been identified in the perineum of women and children, although the disease afflicts the male more often than the female. Most reported cases have occurred in the USA and Canada. The major sources of sepsis are the local skin, colon, anus and rectum, and the lower urinary tract. Colonic, anal and rectal sources carry the worst prognosis. Diabetes mellitus is important in aetiological terms. Rare causes include vasectomy and circumcision. Investigations are essential to define the cause of an episode but not for the diagnosis of the disease. Early aggressive treatment of Fournier's gangrene and underlying conditions is essential. Hyperbaric oxygen and honey are treatment modalities yet to be universally adopted. Risk of death, 16 per cent overall in this series, is related to the patient's condition at presentation. Conclusion: Controversies over the definition of Fournier's gangrene persist but these do not affect the treatment options. The diagnosis is made on clinical grounds. The occurrence of the disease in women is under-reported and may go unrecognized by some clinicians. Some treatment options, such as hyperbaric oxygenation and radical excision, remain controversial.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01497.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 813

Metadata

Authors
Eke, N.
Venue
Journal of British Surgery
Published
2000-06-01
Volume
87
Issue
6
Pages
718-728
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2083098473
Cited by
813
References
0
FWCI
13.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fournier's gangrene: a review of 1726 cases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01497.x
The paper
Eke, N. (2000). Fournier's gangrene: a review of 1726 cases. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01497.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.