Congeneric bites, a challenge in daily clinical practice. Case presentation and minireview
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt2023382Keywords:
Blood Culture, Sepsis, Advanced Wound Management, Wound Bed, Veterinary Wounds, Negative PressureAbstract
Bite wounds can range from simple local injuries to involvement of the musculature, blood vessels, organs and bones, often leading to complex treatments including surgery and hospitalization. These wounds present a phenomenon known as the "iceberg" effect, which can hide the true severity of the injury and require more invasive management to prevent complications, although these are frequent. Comprehensive management of the patient is fundamental for an adequate resolution of the pathology and depends on several factors, such as the time in which the wounds are approached (known as the "golden period"), which is crucial to prevent contaminated wounds from becoming colonized or infected wounds. In addition, the patient's general health and nutritional status, among other aspects, also play a role. Complications following mammalian bites are frequent and constitute one of the most common consultations in emergency departments. In this work, we describe the evolution of a case of generalized systemic infection due to a domestic dog bite, which was successfully treated and discharged in 28 days. Proper preparation of the wound using various methods, dressings and constant instillation systems of antiseptic solutions that favor healing in an optimal environment, as well as the application of V.A.C. negative pressure therapy, allowed the case to be resolved in 28 days. This demonstrates that a correct classification, an adequate approach and knowledge of current strategies in advanced wound management shorten recovery times, improve the patient's quality of life by avoiding daily manipulations, and result in an acceptable cost/benefit for the pet owner
References
1. Cruz-Amaya JM. Principios básicos del manejo de las heridas. Vet Zootec 2008; 2:70-81.
2. Mesa I, López I. Guía práctica de interpretación analítica y diagnóstico diferencial en pequeños animales. Hematología y bioquímica. Grupo Asís Biomedia S.L.; 2021.
3. Amable VI. Staphylococcus coagulasa positivos aislados de caninos. Caracterización fenotípica y perfiles de resistencia a antimicrobianos. Tesis de Especialidad. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste, 2014.
4. Denamiel G, Puigdevall T, Más J, Albarellos G, Gentilini E. Prevalencia y perfil de resistencia a betalactámicos en estafilococos de perros y gatos. InVet 2009; 11:117-22.
5. Alice E, López H, Goyenaga P. Staphilococcus Saprophyticus (Su hallazgo en ambiente hospitalario). Revista Medica de Costa Rica 1979;XLVI:120-1.
6. Fossum TW. Cirugía en pequeños animales. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2008.
7. Sopena Juncosa JJ. Casos clínicos de cirugía de piel. Servet; 2015.
8. Broussard KC, Powers JG. Wound Dressings: Selecting the Most Appropriate Type. Am J Clin Dermatol 2013; 14:449-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40257-013-0046-4.
9. Fuentes Agúndez A, Esparza Imas G, Morales Pasamar MJ, Crespo Villazán L, Nova Rodríguez JM. “Dominate”. Acrónimo de apoyo en la valoración de heridas. Enfermería Dermatológica 2016; 10:7-11.
10. European Wound Management Association (EWMA). Position Document: Wound Bed Preparation in Practice. London: MEP Ltd; 2004.
11. Castellanos-Ramirez DK, Gonzalez-Villordo D, Gracia-Bravo LJ. Wound management. Cirujano General 2014; 36:112-20.
12. Tizón-Bouza E, Pazos-Platas S, Álvarez-Díaz M, Marcos Espino MP, Quintela-Varela ME. Cura en ambiente húmedo en úlceras crónicas a través del Concepto TIME. Recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia. Enfermería Dermatológica 2013; 20:31-42.
13. Chimenos-Küstner E, Giovannoni ML, Schemel-Suárez M. Disbiosis como factor determinante de enfermedad oral y sistémica: importancia del microbioma. Medicina Clínica 2017;149:305-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2017.05.036.
14. Ayello EA, Dowsett C, Schultz GS, Sibbald RG, Falanga V, Harding K, et al. El protocolo que cura todas las heridas. Nursing (Ed española) 2005; 23:14-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0212-5382(05)71375-3.
15. Schultz GS, Sibbald RG, Falanga V, Ayello EA, Dowsett C, Harding K, et al. Wound bed preparation: a systematic approach to wound management. Wound Repair and Regeneration 2003; 11:S1-28. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-475X.11.s2.1.x.
16. Ruiz-López M, Carrasco Campos J, Sánchez Pérez B, González Sánchez A, Fernández Aguilar JL, Bondía Navarro JA. Uso de terapia con presión negativa en heridas con fístulas entéricas. Cirugía Española 2009; 86:29-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ciresp.2009.01.029
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Diego Xavier Medina Valarezo, Juan Carlos Armas Ariza, Martha Susana Camacho Pazmiño, Fanny E. Gallardo Arrieta, Kevin Fabián Astudillo Vallejo, Oscar Caicho Caicedo (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.