| Title |
Pneumoscrotum: report of two different cases and review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s77326 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giovanni Cochetti, Francesco Barillaro, Emanuele Cottini, Francesco D’Amico, Alberto Pansadoro, Solajd Pohja, Andrea Boni, Roberto Cirocchi, Veronica Grassi, Rosa Mancuso, Elisa Silvi, Katifenia Ioannidou, Maria Giulia Egidi, Giulia Poli, Ettore Mearini |
| Abstract |
Pneumoscrotum is the term used to describe the presence of air within the scrotum and includes scrotal emphysema as well as pneumatocele. The etiology varies; in some cases, pneumoscrotum may be due to life-threatening disease like pneumothorax or Fournier gangrene. Despite this, pneumoscrotum is a rarely debated issue. We present two different cases of pneumoscrotum and a review of the literature. The first case report is about a 29 year old male patient affected by Duchenne syndrome who showed pneumoscrotum after cardiopulmonary resuscitation that was performed for asphyxic crisis and cardiovascular arrest. We carried out local puncture with an 18-gauge needle, and the pneumoscrotum was successfully solved. The second case report is about a 56 year old male with pneumoscrotum due to Fournier gangrene who underwent radical exeresis of all necrotic tissues and drainage. This is why most of the scrotal skin and all of the penis skin were removed; as a result, the testicles, epididymis, and cavernosa corpora were externalized. On postoperative day one, the patient was feverless and underwent hyperbaric chamber therapy. No postoperative complications occurred. Accurate evaluation of the pneumoscrotum is always needed. Despite the benign course of most of the clinically evident pneumoscrotum cases, this condition should never be underestimated. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 19% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 57% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 19% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,319,450
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#105
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,440
of 279,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#2
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.