Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Fournier’s gangrene with retroperitoneal extension in an immunocompetent patient
  1. Ashan Canagasingham1,
  2. Alfin Taddeo Okullo1,
  3. Mike He1 and
  4. Simon McCredie2
  1. 1Department of General Surgery, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
  2. 2Department of Urology, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ashan Canagasingham; ashan_213{at}


A male patient in his 80s presented with the classic signs of Fournier’s gangrene. At his initial debridement, an unusual florid involvement of the right cord was noted requiring a right inguinal orchidectomy in addition to extensive debridement. Although he subsequently stabilised in the intensive care unit, his inflammatory markers were noted to uptrend again requiring a relook procedure which revealed evidence of progressive necrosis in the right inguinal region. After further debridement, a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed intra-abdominal extension of the disease process with a retroperitoneal collection adjacent to the caecum—a rare complication of Fournier’s gangrene. This required open surgical drainage for adequate disease control. He subsequently underwent split skin grafting prior to discharge to a rehabilitation facility.

  • Urinary and genital tract disorders
  • Urinary tract infections

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors AC and ATO conceptualised the manuscript and wrote the initial draft. MH and SM revised the manuscript and contributed to its editing.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Case reports provide a valuable learning resource for the scientific community and can indicate areas of interest for future research. They should not be used in isolation to guide treatment choices or public health policy.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.