Surgical or professional removal of ixodes ticks: evaluation of need and perception of necessity by Ukrainian population
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15574/PS.2023.78.17Keywords:
ticks, removal methods, forestry workers, awarenessAbstract
Tick bites are becoming a significant problem in Ukraine among adults and children, which can get tick-borne diseases through visits to the woody areas. Different tick removal techniques are well known, but professional removal is preferred to avoid further complications.
Purpose - to analyze questionnaire performed among forestry workers of seven regions of Ukraine on correlation of professional tick removal with further medical complications and other factors, such as sex, number of bites, repellent use, skin self-inspection, awareness and age, and to review general recommendations and methods of tick removal, including professional / surgical ones.
Materials and methods. Answers of 670 persons (611 males and 59 females), who were bitten by ticks, were analyzed. All respondents were tested for Lyme borreliosis by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay specific IgM and IgG antibodies against B. burgdorferi method. Two by two contingency tables were built to analyze factors that may lead to the seeking of professional tick removal and to analyze consequences of self-removal. Pearson chi-squared tests at p<0.05 and odds ratios with the confidence intervals (α=95%) were calculated to test for association and its strength. Spearman correlation value (p<0.05) between age and seeking of professional tick removal was calculated.
Results. Only 7.3% of forestry workers (7.0% males and 10.2% females) visited medical establishments to professionally remove attached ticks. Forestry workers with high awareness were more likely to seek professional help for tick removal (p<0.05). Almost half (44.6%) of the forestry workers claimed to remove ticks with bare fingers, with 7.9% - by scratching away and 22.4% - by twisting out; 23.7% of all forestry workers used oil to suffocate ticks, all of which is not recommended. Only 32.2% of forestry workers used disinfectants after tick removal. The odds of LB positive results among foresters who sought professional tick removal was 0.47 times of the odds among foresters, which did not seek.
Conclusions. To summarize, forestry workers and other sensitive population should be better educated regarding benefits of seeking professional tick removal. Moreover, seeking immediate professional medical help may also improve treatment of further medical complications in case of borrelia infection, as the doctor at the trauma center may explain symptoms of Lyme borreliosis and further sequence of actions for the patient. The surgical procedure for tick removal is described in literature, may decrease chances of tick-borne diseases spread, and should be considered for further implementation at Ukrainian medical establishments.
The research was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. The study protocol was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of the participating institution. The informed consent of the patient was obtained for conducting the studies.
No conflict of interests was declared by the authors.
References
Andreichyn M, Huk M, Shkilna M, Shtokailo K, Korda M. (2022). Detection of serum antibodies to tick-borne and other infections in patients with lymphadenopathy. Zaporozhye Medical Journal. 24 (1): 38-43. https://doi.org/10.14739/2310-1210.2022.1.238413
Andreychyn M, Korda M, Shkilna M, Ivahiv O et al. (2021). Lyme borreliosis. Monograph. Ternopil: TNMU: 376.
Andreychyn M, Panczuk A, Shkilna M, Tokarska-Rodak M, Korda M, Koziol-Montewka M et al. (2017). Epidemiological situation of Lyme borreliosis and diagnosis standards in Poland and Ukraine. Health Problems of Civilization. 11 (3): 190-194. https://doi.org/10.5114/hpc.2017.69020
Andreychyn M, Shkilna M, Huk M. (2022). Prevention of tick-borne infections: current state and prospects. Infekciyni Hvoroby. 3 (109): 4-11.
CDC. (2022). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA). Tick removal. Retrieved 18/02/2023. URL: https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/removing_a_tick.html.
Colyar M. (2006). Tick removal techniques. Adv Nurse Prac. 14 (5): 26-27.
Duscher GG, Peschke R, Tichy A. (2012). Mechanical tools for the removal of Ixodes ricinus female ticks - differences of instruments and pulling or twisting? Parasitol Res. 111 (4): 1505-1511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-012-2987-6; PMid:22733005
Huygelen V, Borra V, De Buck E, Vandekerckhove P. (2017). Effective methods for tick removal: A systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 10 (3): 177-188. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12257; PMid:28464468
Jahfari S, Herremans T, Platonov AE, Kuiper H, Karan LS, Vasilieva O et al. (2014). High seroprevalence of Borrelia miyamotoi antibodies in forestry workers and individuals suspected of human granulocytic anaplasmosis in the Netherlands. New Microbes New Infect. 2 (5): 144-149. https://doi.org/10.1002/nmi2.59; PMid:25356364 PMCid:PMC4184479
Jovanovic D, Atanasievska S, Protic-Djokic V, Rakic U, Lukac-Radoncic E, Ristanovic E. (2015). Seroprevalence of Borrelia burgdorferi in occupationally exposed persons in the Belgrade area, Serbia. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology. 46 (3): 807-814. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-838246320140698; PMid:26413064 PMCid:PMC4568850
Lantos PM, Rumbaugh J, Bockenstedt LK, Falck-Ytter YT, Aguero-Rosenfeld ME, Auwaerter PG et al. (2021). Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR): 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Lyme Disease. Clin Infect Dis. 72 (1): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1215
Lewandowska A, Kruba Z, Filip R. (2013). Epidemiology of Lyme disease among workers of forest inspectorates in Poland. Ann Agric Environ Med. 20 (2): 329-331.
Ministry of Health of Ukraine. (2019). Lyme disease. Center of Public Health of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine. Retrieved 18/02/2023. URL: https://phc.org.ua/kontrol-zakhvoryuvan/inshi-infekciyni-zakhvoryuvannya/osoblivo-nebezpechni-infekcii/khvoroba-layma.
Miyamoto K, Hashimoto Y. (1998). Prevention of Lyme borreliosis infection after tick bites. Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 72 (5): 512-516. https://doi.org/10.11150/kansenshogakuzasshi1970.72.512; PMid:9642941
Needham G. (1985). Evaluation of 5 popular methods for tick removal. Pediatrics. 75 (6): 997-1002. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.75.6.997; PMid:4000801
Nykytyuk S, Panczuk A, Shkilna M, Tokarska-Rodak M, Szepeluk A, Melnyk L et al. (2017). Awareness of tick-borne bacterial infection in the students of non-medical universities in Ternopil region (western Ukraine). Health Problems of Civilization. 11 (2): 99-102. https://doi.org/10.5114/hpc.2017.69026
Oteo J, deArtola V, GomezCadinanos R, Casas J, Blanco J, Rosel L. (1996). Evaluation of tick removal methods in human ixodidiasis. Revista Clinica Espanola. 196 (9): 584-587.
Ozkan OV. (2009). Tick removal from the skin. ANZ J Surg. 79 (4): 308-309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2009.04872.x
Pavlyshyn H, Haliyash N, Shkilna M, Horishna I, Furdela V. (2017). Epidemiology of Lyme Borreliosis among Risk-Group Children of Western Ukraine. European Journal of Pediatrics. 176 (11): 1505-1505.
Pitches DW. (2006). Removal of ticks: a review of the literature. Euro Surveill. 11 (8): E060817.060814. https://doi.org/10.2807/esw.11.33.03027-en; PMid:16966784
Roupakias S, Mitsakou P, Al Nimer A. (2012). Surgical tick removal. Wilderness Environ Med. 23 (1): 97-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wem.2011.09.003; PMid:22137906
Roupakias S, Mitsakou P, Nimer AA. (2011). Tick removal. J Prev Med Hyg. 52 (1): 40-44.
Şahin AR, Hakkoymaz H, Taşdoğan AM, Kireçci E. (2020). Evaluation and comparison of tick detachment techniques and technical mistakes made during tick removal. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 26 (3): 405-410. https://doi.org/10.14744/tjtes.2020.59680
Shah J, Liu S, Du Cruz I, Poruri A, Maynard R, Shkilna M et al. (2019). Line Immunoblot Assay for Tick-Borne Relapsing Fever and Findings in Patient Sera from Australia, Ukraine and the USA. Healthcare. 7: 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7040121; PMid:31640151 PMCid:PMC6955669
Shkilna M, Andreychyn M, Klishch I, Korda M, Rogalskyy I. (2017). Risk of tick-borne bacterial diseases in forestry workers of Ternopil region (western Ukraine). Health Problems of Civilization. 11 (2): 93-98. https://doi.org/10.5114/hpc.2017.69025
Shkilna M, Andreychyn M, Korda M, Pokryshko O, Humenna R, Huk M et al. (2021). Serological Surveillance of Hospitalized Patients for Lyme Borreliosis in Ukraine. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases. 21 (4): 301-303. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2020.2715; PMid:33688747 PMCid:PMC7997712
Stewart RL, Burgdorfer W, Needham GR. (1998). Evaluation of three commercial tick removal tools. Wilderness Environ Med. 9 (3): 137-142. https://doi.org/10.1580/1080-6032(1998)009[0137:EOTCTR]2.3.CO;2; PMid:11990185
Tokarska-Rodak M, Plewik D, Koziol-Montewka M, Szepeluk A, Paszkiewicz J. (2014). Risk of occupational infections caused by borrelia burgdorferi among forestry workers and farmers. Medycyna Pracy. 65 (1): 109-117. https://doi.org/10.13075/mp.5893.2014.017; PMid:24834698
Tokarska-Rodak M, Shkilna M, Krajewska M, Panczuk A, Weiner M, Pawlowicz E et al. (2020). The evaluation of hunters and foresters' knowledge of the possible ways of preventing Borrelia burgdorferi infections. Medycyna Pracy. 71 (1): 59-68. https://doi.org/10.13075/mp.5893.00841; PMid:31911700
Wormser GP, Dattwyler RJ, Shapiro ED, Halperin JJ, Steere AC, Klempner MS et al. (2006). The clinical assessment, treatment, and prevention of lyme disease, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, and babesiosis: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 43 (9): 1089-1134. https://doi.org/10.1086/508667; PMid:17029130
Zinchuk O. (2010). Lyme-borreliosis: clinical and immunopathogenetic features and emergency preventive treatment: abstract of the dissertation for obtaining degree of doctor of medicine of science. 14.01.13. Kyiv: 41.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Paediatric Surgery (Ukraine)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The policy of the Journal “PAEDIATRIC SURGERY. UKRAINE” is compatible with the vast majority of funders' of open access and self-archiving policies. The journal provides immediate open access route being convinced that everyone – not only scientists - can benefit from research results, and publishes articles exclusively under open access distribution, with a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 international license(СС BY-NC).
Authors transfer the copyright to the Journal “PAEDIATRIC SURGERY.UKRAINE” when the manuscript is accepted for publication. Authors declare that this manuscript has not been published nor is under simultaneous consideration for publication elsewhere. After publication, the articles become freely available on-line to the public.
Readers have the right to use, distribute, and reproduce articles in any medium, provided the articles and the journal are properly cited.
The use of published materials for commercial purposes is strongly prohibited.
