Search

BACKGROUND:Indications for intervention after high-grade renal trauma (HGRT) remain poorly defined. Certain radiographic findings can be used to guide the management of HGRT. We aimed to assess the associations between initial radiographic findings and interventions for hemorrhage after HGRT and to determine hematoma and laceration sizes predicting interventions. METHODS:The Genito-Urinary Trauma Study is a multi-center study including HGRT patients from 14 Level-1 trauma centers from 2014-2017. Admission CT scans were categorized based upon multiple variables, including vascular contrast extravasation (VCE), hematoma rim distance (HRD), and size of the deepest laceration. Renal bleeding interventions included: angioembolization, surgical packing, renorrhaphy, partial nephrectomy, and nephrectomy. Mixed effect Poisson regression was used to assess the associations. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to define optimal cut-offs for HRD and laceration size. RESULTS:In the 326 patients, injury mechanism was blunt in 81%. Forty-seven patients (14%) underwent 51 bleeding interventions including 19 renal angioembolizations, 16 nephrectomies, and 16 other procedures. In univariable analysis, presence of VCE was associated with a 5.9-fold increase in risk of interventions, and each centimeter increase in HRD was associated with 30% increase in risk of bleeding interventions. An HRD ≥3.5cm and renal laceration depth of ≥2.5cm were most predictive of interventions. In multivariable models, VCE and HRD were significantly associated with bleeding interventions. CONCLUSION:Our findings support the importance of certain radiographic findings in prediction of bleeding interventions after HGRT. These factors can be used as adjuncts to renal injury grading to guide clinical decision making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Prognostic and Epidemiological Study, Level III.

BackgroundThe rarity of renal trauma limits its study and the strength of evidence-based guidelines. Although management of renal injuries has shifted toward a nonoperative approach, nephrectomy remains the most common intervention for high-grade renal trauma (HGRT). We aimed to describe the contemporary management of HGRT in the United States and also evaluate clinical factors associated with nephrectomy after HGRT.MethodsFrom 2014 to 2017, data on HGRT (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades III-V) were collected from 14 participating Level-1 trauma centers. Data were gathered on demographics, injury characteristics, management, and short-term outcomes. Management was classified into three groups-expectant, conservative/minimally invasive, and open operative. Descriptive statistics were used to report management of renal trauma. Univariate and multivariate logistic mixed effect models with clustering by facility were used to look at associations between proposed risk factors and nephrectomy.ResultsA total of 431 adult HGRT were recorded; 79% were male, and mechanism of injury was blunt in 71%. Injuries were graded as III, IV, and V in 236 (55%), 142 (33%), and 53 (12%), respectively. Laparotomy was performed in 169 (39%) patients. Overall, 300 (70%) patients were managed expectantly and 47 (11%) underwent conservative/minimally invasive management. Eighty-four (19%) underwent renal-related open operative management with 55 (67%) of them undergoing nephrectomy. Nephrectomy rates were 15% and 62% for grades IV and V, respectively. Penetrating injuries had significantly higher American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades and higher rates of nephrectomy. In multivariable analysis, only renal injury grade and penetrating mechanism of injury were significantly associated with undergoing nephrectomy.ConclusionExpectant and conservative management is currently utilized in 80% of HGRT; however, the rate of nephrectomy remains high. Clinical factors, such as surrogates of hemodynamic instability and metabolic acidosis, are associated with nephrectomy for HGRT; however, higher renal injury grade and penetrating trauma remain the strongest associations.Level of evidencePrognostic/epidemiologic study, level III; Therapeutic study, level IV.