European Journal of Plastic Surgery

, Volume 37, Issue 11, pp 595–598 | Cite as

Management of facial and periocular dog bites: a review of 104 cases

  • Sonali Nagendran
  • Andre S. Litwin
  • Mano Sira
  • Jonathan Norris
  • Baljit Dheansa
  • Raman Malhotra
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 308 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Dog bites are a frequent cause of facial and periocular injuries in both children and adults. This aim of this study is to review current practice in the management of facial and periorbital dog bite injuries and to examine the current evidence-base for such treatment strategies.

Methods

Five hundred eighty-seven patients with dog bite injuries requiring surgical intervention were identified from operating theatre records in one tertiary centre over a 9-year period. A retrospective case note review of 104 patients with facial and periorbital dog bite injuries was performed. Data on patient demographics, type of injury, treatment, and outcome was collected and analysed.

Results

The majority of patients were children, with a mean age of 11 years (range 1–91 years). Injuries involved the cheek in 57 cases (55 %), eyelids in 17 cases (16 %), lips in 24 cases (23 %) and nose in 8 cases (8 %). No facial fractures, canalicular, or globe injuries were recorded. All patients underwent irrigation, debridement, and primary wound closure. Surgical repair occurred within 24 h in 19 cases (18.2 %), within 48 h in 71 cases (68.3 %) and within 5 days in 14 cases (13.4 %). Three patients (2.9 %) developed a wound infection. Two patients (1.9 %) required scar revision surgery.

Conclusions

Periorbital and facial dog bite injuries may result in considerable morbidity. However, the majority of injuries are superficial and canalicular injury and bony injury is uncommon. Early wound irrigation, debridement and primary closure results in a good cosmetic outcome with a low risk of infection.

Level of Evidence:

Level IV, risk/prognostic study.

Keywords

Dog bite Face Eyelid Periorbital 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors declare they have full control of all primary data and agree to allow the journal to review data if requested.

Ethical standards

This retrospective cohort study had prospective approval from the local ethics committee and adheres to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975, as revised in 2000. All patients gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study were omitted.

References

  1. 1.
    Murray JK, Browne WJ, Roberts MA, Whitmarsh A, Gruffydd-Jones TJ (2010) Number and ownership profiles of cats and dogs in the UK. Vet Rec 166:163–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Palmer J, Rees M (1983) Dog bites of the face: a 15 year review. Br J Plast Surg 36:315–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burroughs JR, Soparkar CN, Patrinely JR, Williams PD, Holck DE (2002) Periocular dog bite injuries and responsible care. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 18:416–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Savar A, Kirszrot J, Rubin PA (2008) Canalicular involvement in dog bite related eyelid lacerations. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 24:296–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slonim CB (1996) Dog bite-induced canalicular lacerations: a review of 17 cases. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 12:218–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wei LA, Chen HH, Hink EM, Durairaj VD (2013) Pediatric facial fractures from dog bites. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 29:179–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boat BW, Dixon CA, Pearl E, Thieken L, Bucher SE (2012) Pediatric dog bite victims: a need for a continuum of care. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 51:473–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaye AE, Belz JM, Kirschner RE (2009) Pediatric dog bite injuries: a 5 year review of the experience at the children’s hospital of Philadelphia. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:551–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wladis EJ, Dewan MA (2012) Periorbital trauma from pit bull terrier attacks. Orbit 31:200–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Callaham M (1980) Prophylactic antibiotics in common dog bite wounds: a controlled study. Ann Emerg Med 9:410–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith MR, Walker A, Brenchley J (2003) Barking up the wrong tree? A survey of dog bite wound management. Emerg Med J 20:253–255PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maimaris C, Quinton DN (1988) Dog-bite lacerations: a controlled trial of primary wound closure. Arch Emerg Med 5:156–161PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paschos NK, Makris EA, Gantsos A, Georgoulis AD (2013) Primary closure versus non-closure of dog bite wounds. A randomised controlled trial. Injury 45:237–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rui-Feng C, Li-Song H, Ji-Bo Z, Li-Qiu W (2013) Emergency treatment on facial laceration of dog bite wounds with immediate primary closure: a prospective randomized trial study. BMC Emerg Med 13(Suppl 1):S2PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kale SM, Patil SB, Khare N, Jain A (2011) Animal bites—should primary reconstruction be the standard treatment? Eur J Plast Surg 34:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Akhtar N, Smith MJ, McKirdy S, Page RE (2006) Surgical delay in the management of dog bite injuries in children, does it increase the risk of infection? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 59:80–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mcheik JN, Vergnes P, Bondonny JM (2000) Treatment of facial dog bite injuries in children: a retrospective study. J Pediatr Surg 35:580–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brakenbury PH, Muwanga C (1989) A comparative double blind study of amoxycillin/clavulanate vs placebo in the prevention of infection after animal bites. Arch Emerg Med 6:251–256PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cummings P (1994) Antibiotics to prevent infection in patients with dog bite wounds: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Ann Emerg Med 23:535–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dire DJ, Hogan DE, Riggs MW (1994) A prospective evaluation of risk factors for infections from dog-bite wounds. Acad Emerg Med 1:258–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ordog GJ (1986) The bacteriology of dog bite wounds on initial presentation. Ann Emerg Med 15:1324–1329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu PS, Beres A, Tashjian DB, Moriarty KP (2011) Primary repair of facial dog bite injuries in children. Pediatr Emerg Care 27:801–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Eeckhout GPA, Wylock P (2005) Dog bites: an overview. Eur J Plast Surg 28:233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonali Nagendran
    • 1
  • Andre S. Litwin
    • 1
  • Mano Sira
    • 1
  • Jonathan Norris
    • 1
  • Baljit Dheansa
    • 2
  • Raman Malhotra
    • 1
  1. 1.Corneoplastic UnitQueen Victoria Hospital NHS TrustWest SussexUK
  2. 2.Department of Plastic SurgeryQueen Victoria Hospital NHS TrustWest SussexUK

Personalised recommendations