Search

BackgroundPediatric renal trauma is rare and lacks sufficient population-specific data to generate evidence-based management guidelines. A nonoperative approach is preferred and has been shown to be safe. However, bleeding risk assessment and management of collecting system injury are not well understood. We introduce the Multi-institutional Pediatric Acute Renal Trauma Study (Mi-PARTS), a retrospective cohort study designed to address these questions. This article describes the demographics and contemporary management of pediatric renal trauma at Level I trauma centers in the United States.MethodsRetrospective data were collected at 13 participating Level I trauma centers on pediatric patients presenting with renal trauma between 2010 and 2019. Data were gathered on demographics, injury characteristics, management, and short-term outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to report on demographics, acute management, and outcomes.ResultsIn total, 1,216 cases were included in this study. Of all patients, 67.2% were male, and 93.8% had a blunt injury mechanism. In addition, 29.3% had isolated renal injuries, and 65.6% were high-grade (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Grades III-V) injuries. The mean Injury Severity Score was 20.5. Most patients were managed nonoperatively (86.4%), and 3.9% had an open surgical intervention, including 2.7% having nephrectomy. Angioembolization was performed in 0.9%. Collecting system intervention was performed in 7.9%. Overall mortality was 3.3% and was only observed in patients with multiple injuries. The rate of avoidable transfer was 28.2%.ConclusionThe management and outcomes of pediatric renal trauma lack data to inform evidence-based guidelines. Nonoperative management of bleeding following renal injury is a well-established practice. Intervention for renal trauma is rare. Our findings reinforce differences from the adult population and highlights opportunities for further investigation. With data made available through Mi-PARTS, we aimed to answer pediatric specific questions, including a pediatric-specific bleeding risk nomogram, and better understanding indications for interventions for collecting system injuries.Level of evidencePrognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

PURPOSE: We studied the current management trends for extraperitoneal bladder injuries and evaluated the use of operative repair versus catheter drainage, and the associated complications with each approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively collected data on bladder trauma from 20 level 1 trauma centers across the United States from 2013 to 2018. We excluded patients with intraperitoneal bladder injury and those who died within 24 hours of hospital arrival. We separated patients with extraperitoneal bladder injuries into 2 groups (catheter drainage vs operative repair) based on their initial management within the first 4 days and compared the rates of bladder injury related complications among them. Regression analyses were used to identify potential predictors of complications. RESULTS: From 323 bladder injuries we included 157 patients with extraperitoneal bladder injuries. Concomitant injuries occurred in 139 (88%) patients with pelvic fracture seen in 79%. Sixty-seven patients (43%) initially underwent operative repair for their extraperitoneal bladder injuries. The 3 most common reasons for operative repair were severity of injury or bladder neck injury (40%), injury found during laparotomy (39%) and concern for pelvic hardware contamination (28%). Significant complications were identified in 23% and 19% of the catheter drainage and operative repair groups, respectively (p=0.55). The only statistically significant predictor for complications was bladder neck or urethral injury (RR 2.69, 95% 1.21-5.97, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this large multi-institutional cohort, 43% of patients underwent surgical repair for initial management of extraperitoneal bladder injuries. We found no significant difference in complications between the initial management strategies of catheter drainage and operative repair. The most significant predictor for complications was concomitant urethral or bladder neck injury.

BackgroundIn 2018, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) published revisions to the renal injury grading system to reflect the increased reliance on computed tomography scans and non-operative management of high-grade renal trauma (HGRT). We aimed to evaluate how these revisions will change the grading of HGRT and if it outperforms the original 1989 grading in predicting bleeding control interventions.MethodsData on HGRT were collected from 14 Level-1 trauma centers from 2014 to 2017. Patients with initial computed tomography scans were included. Two radiologists reviewed the scans to regrade the injuries according to the 1989 and 2018 AAST grading systems. Descriptive statistics were used to assess grade reclassifications. Mixed-effect multivariable logistic regression was used to measure the predictive ability of each grading system. The areas under the curves were compared.ResultsOf the 322 injuries included, 27.0% were upgraded, 3.4% were downgraded, and 69.5% remained unchanged. Of the injuries graded as III or lower using the 1989 AAST, 33.5% were upgraded to grade IV using the 2018 AAST. Of the grade V injuries, 58.8% were downgraded using the 2018 AAST. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall areas under the curves between the 2018 and 1989 AAST grading system for predicting bleeding interventions (0.72 vs. 0.68, p = 0.34).ConclusionAbout one third of the injuries previously classified as grade III will be upgraded to grade IV using the 2018 AAST, which adds to the heterogeneity of grade IV injuries. Although the 2018 AAST grading provides more anatomic details on injury patterns and includes important radiologic findings, it did not outperform the 1989 AAST grading in predicting bleeding interventions.Level of evidencePrognostic and Epidemiological Study, level III.

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 management of high-grade renal trauma (HGRT) and the indications for intervention are not well defined. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) renal grading does not incorporate some important clinical and radiologic variables associated with increased risk of interventions. We aimed to use data from a multi-institutional contemporary cohort to develop a nomogram predicting risk of interventions for bleeding after HGRT.MethodsFrom 2014 to 2017, data on adult HGRT (AAST grades III-V) were collected from 14 level 1 trauma centers. Patients with both clinical and radiologic data were included. Data were gathered on demographics, injury characteristics, management, and outcomes. Clinical and radiologic parameters, obtained after trauma evaluation, were used to predict renal bleeding interventions. We developed a prediction model by applying backward model selection to a logistic regression model and built a nomogram using the selected model.ResultsA total of 326 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mechanism of injury was blunt in 81%. Median age and injury severity score were 28 years and 22, respectively. Injuries were reported as AAST grades III (60%), IV (33%), and V (7%). Overall, 47 (14%) underwent interventions for bleeding control including 19 renal angioembolizations, 16 nephrectomies, and 12 other procedures. Of the variables included in the nomogram, a hematoma size of 12 cm contributed the most points, followed by penetrating trauma mechanism, vascular contrast extravasation, pararenal hematoma extension, concomitant injuries, and shock. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.85).ConclusionWe developed a nomogram that integrates multiple clinical and radiologic factors readily available upon assessment of patients with HGRT and can provide predicted probability for bleeding interventions. This nomogram may help in guiding appropriate management of HGRT and decreasing unnecessary interventions.Level of evidencePrognostic and epidemiological study, level III.

BackgroundExcretory phase computed tomography (CT) scan is used for diagnosis of renal collecting system injuries and accurate grading of high-grade renal trauma. However, optimal timing of the excretory phase is not well established. We hypothesized that there is an association between excretory phase timing and diagnosis of urinary extravasation and aimed to identify the optimal excretory phase timing for diagnosis of urinary extravasation.MethodsThe Genito-Urinary Trauma Study collected data on high-grade renal trauma (grades III-V) from 14 Level I trauma centers between 2014 and 2017. The time between portal venous and excretory phases at initial CT scans was recorded. Poisson regression was used to measure the association between excretory phase timing and diagnosis of urinary extravasation. Predictive receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to identify a cutoff point optimizing detection of urinary extravasation.ResultsOverall, 326 patients were included; 245 (75%) had excretory phase CT scans for review either initially (n = 212) or only at their follow-up (n = 33). At initial CT with excretory phase, 46 (22%) of 212 patients were diagnosed with urinary extravasation. Median time between portal venous and excretory phases was 4 minutes (interquartile range, 4-7 minutes). Time of initial excretory phase was significantly greater in those diagnosed with urinary extravasation. Increased time to excretory phase was positively associated with finding urinary extravasation at the initial CT scan after controlling for multiple factors (risk ratio per minute, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.22; p < 0.001). The optimal delay for detection of urinary extravasation was 9 minutes.ConclusionTiming of the excretory phase is a significant factor in accurate diagnosis of renal collecting system injury. A 9-minute delay between the early and excretory phases optimized detection of urinary extravasation.Level of evidenceDiagnostic tests/criteria 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.