- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,085
- Reaction score
- 2,948
I'm a board-certified medicine attending.
My acute management of suspected nec fasc is such:
1) Assess the patient
2) Put the patient on antibiotics (typically triple therapy with a beta lactam, vanc, and clinda. Everyone always forgets the clinda)
3) Order the labs to calculate a LRINEC score (if not done. The chem panel and CBC usually are, the CRP usually isn't) with the understanding that the followup trials haven't shown it to be as reliable for ruling out nec fasc as the pivotal trial was
4) If very high suspicion (rapid progression or crepitus on exam) and/or an elevated LRINEC score, get a surgical consultation.
Notice what isn't in that sequence? Imaging. To quote uptodate: "Surgical exploration is the only way to establish the diagnosis of necrotizing infection." The bold is theirs. They go on to say "Radiographic imaging can be useful to help determine whether necrotizing infection is present but should not delay surgical intervention when there is crepitus on examination or rapid progression of clinical manifestations"
If my suspicion is moderate but I'm not convinced of my assessment? I might order imaging at the same time (or before) surgical consultation. But unlike what apparently you would have done as an M2, the assessment of an experienced surgeon is the definitive test for nec fasc.
Dude come on. We're not talking about obvious rapid progression and hard signs in this scenario. Intern thought it was maybe a little crackly.
Are you really telling me that you don't think a medicine team should be able to assess for nec fasc and it requires a surgeon (or in reality a surgery intern) to lay magic hands on them to assess? Are you agreeing with @OrthoTraumaMD that a MEDICINE attending should ever get a pass for not being able to differentiate between nec fasc gout and arthritis? I mean this stuff is truly mind boggling to me. It might be reasonable coming from psych or ophtho or something. Not medicine.