Evaluation and comparison of tick detachment techniques and technical mistakes made during tick removal.

BACKGROUND Tick is among the important ectoparasites of humans and animals. Ticks may transmit disease-causing pathogens to humans. Tick contact may be resulted in several viral and bacterial infections, including Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever. Timely removal of ticks with appropriate methods is important in prevention of disease transmission. There are many methods reported for tick detachment. In this study, we aimed to evaluate two of them, suture lassoing and freezing and to compare both methods and to examine technical mistakes with these techniques. METHODS This study was designed as a prospective cross-sectional study, and included the ticks detached by healthcare professionals or directly by patients who presented to the emergency department due to tick contact. The ticks were recorded as larvae, nymphs, and adults according to their growth period. Ticks detachment types with surgical sutures and removal mistakes were recorded. RESULTS The majority (77.4%) of the ticks were removed by healthcare professionals and a lower rate by patients themselves with hand (22.6%). No technical mistake was found in 72 (77.4%) patients, and the tick was detached as a whole, while detached broken in 15 (16.1%) patients, and the tick was detached as a whole, but the sutures were attached wrong in six (6.5%) patients. Tick broken off due to technical mistakes was most commonly seen in the ticks removed by the individuals themselves. CONCLUSION The results of this study suggest that when appropriately and correctly used, both suture lassoing and tweezers are effective in tick removal. Public awareness-raising and training programs should be increased on this issue.

[1]  S. Aksoy,et al.  Tick-Borne Diseases in Turkey: A Review Based on One Health Perspective , 2016, PLoS neglected tropical diseases.

[2]  O. Ergonul,et al.  Revisiting detachment techniques in human-biting ticks. , 2016, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[3]  R. Ozaras,et al.  Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever in Turkey: Current status and future challenges. , 2016, Antiviral research.

[4]  E. Bonzón-Kulichenko,et al.  Characterization of the tick-pathogen interface by quantitative proteomics. , 2012, Ticks and tick-borne diseases.

[5]  A. Ozkul,et al.  Current status of human arboviral diseases in Turkey. , 2011, Vector borne and zoonotic diseases.

[6]  M. Uluğ The Evaluation of Epidemiological, Clinical and Laboratory Findings of Cases Admitted for a Tick Bite , 2011 .

[7]  G. Ghirga,et al.  Effective tick removal with a fishing line knot. , 2010, Wilderness & environmental medicine.

[8]  J. de la Fuente,et al.  Overview: Ticks as vectors of pathogens that cause disease in humans and animals. , 2008, Frontiers in bioscience : a journal and virtual library.

[9]  D. Pitches Removal of ticks: a review of the literature. , 2006, Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin.

[10]  J. Dawson,et al.  Duration of tick attachment required for transmission of granulocytic ehrlichiosis. , 1998, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[11]  Barbara J. B. Johnson,et al.  Duration of tick attachment as a predictor of the risk of Lyme disease in an area in which Lyme disease is endemic. , 1997, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[12]  C. P. Mchugh,et al.  Evaluation of devices for removing attached Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae). , 1992, Journal of medical entomology.

[13]  G. Ebel Update on Powassan virus: emergence of a North American tick-borne flavivirus. , 2010, Annual review of entomology.

[14]  M. Gammons,et al.  Tick removal. , 2002, American family physician.

[15]  E. Cupp Biology of ticks. , 1991, The Veterinary clinics of North America. Small animal practice.