BACKGROUND: We reviewed our experience with penetrating renal injuries to compare nonoperative management of penetrating renal injuries with renorrhaphy and nephrectomy in light of concerns for unnecessary explorations and increased nephrectomy rates. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we reviewed the records of 98 penetrating renal injuries from 2003 to 2008. Renal injuries were classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and analyzed based on nephrectomy, renorrhaphy, and nonoperative management. Patient characteristics and outcomes measured were compared between management types. Continuous variables were summarized by means and compared using t test. Categorical variables were compared using χ² test. RESULTS: Nonoperative management was performed in 40% of renal injuries, followed by renorrhaphy (38%) and nephrectomy (22%). Of renal gunshot wounds (n = 79), 26%, 42%, and 32% required nephrectomy, renorrhaphy, and were managed nonoperatively, respectively. No renal stab wound (n = 16) resulted in a nephrectomy and 81% were managed conservatively. Renal injuries managed nonoperatively had a lower incidence of transfusion (34 vs. 95%, p < 0.001), shorter mean intensive care unit (ICU) (3.0 vs. 9.0 days, p = 0.028) and mean hospital length of stay (7.9 vs. 18.1 days, p = 0.006), and lower mortality rate (0 vs. 20%, p = 0.005) compared with nephrectomy but similar to renorrhaphy (transfusion: 34 vs. 36%, p = 0.864; mean ICU: 3.0 vs. 2.8 days, p = 0.931; mean hospital length of stay: 7.9 vs. 11.2 days, p = 0.197; mortality: 0 vs. 6%, p = 0.141). The complication rate of nonoperative management was favorable compared with operative management. CONCLUSIONS: Selective nonoperative management of penetrating renal injuries resulted in a lower mortality rate, lower incidence of blood transfusion, and shorter mean ICU and hospital stay compared with patients managed by nephrectomy but similar to renorrhaphy. Complication rates were low and similar to operative management.
BACKGROUND: We reviewed our experience with penetrating renal injuries to compare nonoperative management of penetrating renal injuries with renorrhaphy and nephrectomy in light of concerns for unnecessary explorations and increased nephrectomy rates. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we reviewed the records of 98 penetrating renal injuries from 2003 to 2008. Renal injuries were classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and analyzed based on nephrectomy, renorrhaphy, and nonoperative management. Patient characteristics and outcomes measured were compared between management types. Continuous variables were summarized by means and compared using t test. Categorical variables were compared using χ² test. RESULTS: Nonoperative management was performed in 40% of renal injuries, followed by renorrhaphy (38%) and nephrectomy (22%). Of renal gunshot wounds (n = 79), 26%, 42%, and 32% required nephrectomy, renorrhaphy, and were managed nonoperatively, respectively. No renal stab wound (n = 16) resulted in a nephrectomy and 81% were managed conservatively. Renal injuries managed nonoperatively had a lower incidence of transfusion (34 vs. 95%, p < 0.001), shorter mean intensive care unit (ICU) (3.0 vs. 9.0 days, p = 0.028) and mean hospital length of stay (7.9 vs. 18.1 days, p = 0.006), and lower mortality rate (0 vs. 20%, p = 0.005) compared with nephrectomy but similar to renorrhaphy (transfusion: 34 vs. 36%, p = 0.864; mean ICU: 3.0 vs. 2.8 days, p = 0.931; mean hospital length of stay: 7.9 vs. 11.2 days, p = 0.197; mortality: 0 vs. 6%, p = 0.141). The complication rate of nonoperative management was favorable compared with operative management. CONCLUSIONS: Selective nonoperative management of penetrating renal injuries resulted in a lower mortality rate, lower incidence of blood transfusion, and shorter mean ICU and hospital stay compared with patients managed by nephrectomy but similar to renorrhaphy. Complication rates were low and similar to operative management.
Authors: Allen F Morey; Steve Brandes; Daniel David Dugi; John H Armstrong; Benjamin N Breyer; Joshua A Broghammer; Bradley A Erickson; Jeff Holzbeierlein; Steven J Hudak; Jeffrey H Pruitt; James T Reston; Richard A Santucci; Thomas G Smith; Hunter Wessells Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Aziza N Al Rawahi; Derek J Roberts; Fatma A Al Hinai; Jamie M Boyd; Christopher J Doig; Chad G Ball; George C Velmahos; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Pradeep H Navsaria Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Andrea Mingoli; Marco La Torre; Emanuele Migliori; Bruno Cirillo; Martina Zambon; Paolo Sapienza; Gioia Brachini Journal: Ther Clin Risk Manag Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: Federico Coccolini; Ernest E Moore; Yoram Kluger; Walter Biffl; Ari Leppaniemi; Yosuke Matsumura; Fernando Kim; Andrew B Peitzman; Gustavo P Fraga; Massimo Sartelli; Luca Ansaloni; Goran Augustin; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Fikri Abu-Zidan; Imitiaz Wani; Dieter Weber; Emmanouil Pikoulis; Martha Larrea; Catherine Arvieux; Vassil Manchev; Viktor Reva; Raul Coimbra; Vladimir Khokha; Alain Chichom Mefire; Carlos Ordonez; Massimo Chiarugi; Fernando Machado; Boris Sakakushev; Junichi Matsumoto; Ron Maier; Isidoro di Carlo; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 5.469