4.4 Article

Epidemiology and clinical effects of hump-nosed pit viper (Genus: Hypnale) envenoming in Sri Lanka

期刊

TOXICON
卷 61, 期 -, 页码 11-15

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2012.10.013

关键词

Envenoming; Sri Lanka; Hump-nosed viper; Hypnale; Snake bite

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hump-nosed pit vipers of Genus Hypnale are the commonest cause of snake bite in Sri Lanka. Although there are many reports of local effects, coagulopathy and acute kidney injury, it remains unclear how frequent these clinical effects are and therefore the medical importance of this snake genus. The genus has been recently revised to include Hypnale hypnale from Sri Lanka and Western Ghats of Southern India, and the two endemic species to Sri Lanka, Hypnale zara and Hypnale nepa. This was a prospective hospital-based clinical study of definite Hypnale spp. bites from July 2008 to July 2010 in six Sri Lankan hospitals. There were 114 patients included and all snakes were correctly identified by hospital staff as Hypnale spp. Of these, 93 snakes were identified as H. hypnale by an expert, 16 as H. zara and five as H. nepa. Most bites occurred on the lower limbs in the daytime. There was no difference in the clinical effects between the three species. Pain and fang marks were present in all patients, 101 had local swelling and only 16 (14%) developed extensive local swelling that spread proximally and involved more than half of the bitten limb. Systemic symptoms occurred in 18 patients; four patients had an abnormal 20 min whole blood clotting test and one patient developed an acute kidney injury that required haemodialysis. All patients were discharged alive with a median length of stay of 2 days. This study confirms that hump-nosed viper bites cause only minor effects in most cases. Future studies need to undertake formal coagulation studies and identify important early indicators of renal impairment. Crown Copyright (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据