The Editorial Executive Committee welcomes letters, which should be less than 250 words. Before a decision to publish is made, letters which refer to a published article may be sent to the author for a response. Any letter may be sent to an expert for comment. When letters are published, they are usually accompanied in the same issue by their responses or comments. The Committee screens out discourteous, inaccurate or libellous statements. The letters are sub-edited before publication. Authors are required to declare any conflicts of interest. The Committee's decision on publication is final.


Letter to the Editor

Editor, – I would like to thank Dr Isbister for his excellent review of marine animal injuries (Aust Prescr 2007;30:117-21). One issue not raised is the importance of ensuring adequate tetanus prophylaxis in patients with stingray or venomous fish injuries, as tetanus secondary to the wound is a reported cause of death in stingray injury.1 Tetanus immunisation status needs to be determined in patients with these penetrating wounds, and prophylaxis used as required.

Michael Corkeron
Senior Staff Specialist
Intensive Care Unit
The Townsville Hospital
Douglas, Qld


Author's comments

Dr Geoffrey Isbister, author of the article, comments:

I agree that all patients with penetrating marine injuries should have a review of their tetanus prophylaxis, particularly in the interests of keeping tetanus prophylaxis up to date in any patient with a penetrating wound.


Michael Corkeron

Senior Staff Specialist, Intensive Care Unit The Townsville Hospital Douglas, Qld

Geoffrey Isbister

Senior Research Fellow, Tropical Toxinology Unit, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Northern Territory

Clinical Toxicologist and Emergency Physician, Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital, New South Wales

Clinical Toxicologist, New South Wales and Queensland Poison Information Centres