OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal evaluation and management of renal injuries by review of the world's English-language literature on the subject. METHODS: A consensus conference convened by the World Health Organization and the Societé Internationale d'Urologie met to critically review reports of the diagnosis and treatment of renal trauma. The English-language literature about renal trauma was identified using Medline, and additional cited works not detected in the initial search obtained. Evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of renal trauma were made with reference to a five-point scale. RESULTS: There were many Level 3 and 4 citations, few Level 2, and one Level 1 which supported clinical practice patterns. Findings of nearly 200 reviewed citations are summarized. CONCLUSIONS: Published reports on renal trauma still rely heavily on expert opinion and single-institution retrospective case series. Prospective trials of the most significant issues, when possible, might improve the quality of evidence that dictates the behaviour of practitioners.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal evaluation and management of renal injuries by review of the world's English-language literature on the subject. METHODS: A consensus conference convened by the World Health Organization and the Societé Internationale d'Urologie met to critically review reports of the diagnosis and treatment of renal trauma. The English-language literature about renal trauma was identified using Medline, and additional cited works not detected in the initial search obtained. Evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of renal trauma were made with reference to a five-point scale. RESULTS: There were many Level 3 and 4 citations, few Level 2, and one Level 1 which supported clinical practice patterns. Findings of nearly 200 reviewed citations are summarized. CONCLUSIONS: Published reports on renal trauma still rely heavily on expert opinion and single-institution retrospective case series. Prospective trials of the most significant issues, when possible, might improve the quality of evidence that dictates the behaviour of practitioners.
Authors: Darshan P Patel; Jeffrey D Redshaw; Benjamin N Breyer; Thomas G Smith; Bradley A Erickson; Sarah D Majercik; Thomas W Gaither; James R Craig; Scott Gardner; Angela P Presson; Chong Zhang; James M Hotaling; William O Brant; Jeremy B Myers Journal: Injury Date: 2015-03-01 Impact factor: 2.586