Arunan Sujenthiran1, Pieter Jan Elshout2, Erik Veskimae3, Steven MacLennan4, Yuhong Yuan5, Efraim Serafetinidis6, Davendra M Sharma7, Noam D Kitrey8, Nenad Djakovic9, Nicolaas Lumen2, Franklin E Kuehhas10, Duncan J Summerton11. 1. Department of Urology, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK. Electronic address: asujenthiran@doctors.org.uk. 2. Department of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Department of Urology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. 4. Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. 5. Department of Medicine, Health Science Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Urology, Asklipieion General Hospital, Athens, Greece. 7. Department of Urology, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK. 8. Department of Urology, Chaim Sheba Medical Centre, Tel-Hashomer, Israel. 9. Department of Urology, Muhldorf General Hospital, Muhldorf am Inn, Germany. 10. Private office, Stadiongasse 6-8/ 30, 1010 Vienna. 11. University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The management of high-grade (Grade IV-V) renal injuries remains controversial. There has been an increase in the use of (NOM) but limited data exists comparing outcomes with open surgical exploration. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to determine if NOM is the best first-line option for high-grade renal trauma in terms of safety and effectiveness. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for all relevant publications, without time or language limitations. The primary harm outcome was overall mortality and the primary benefit outcome was renal preservation rate. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay and complication rate. Single-arm studies were included as there were few comparative studies. Only studies with more than 50 patients were included. Data were narratively synthesised in light of methodological and clinical heterogeneity. The risk of bias of each included study was assessed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seven nonrandomised comparative and four single-arm studies were selected for data extraction. Seven hundred and eighty-seven patients were included from the comparative studies with 535 patients in the NOM group and 252 in the open surgical exploration group. A further 825 patients were included from single-arm studies. Results from comparative studies: overall mortality: NOM (0-3%), open surgical exploration (0-29%); renal preservation rate: NOM (84-100%), open surgical exploration (0-82%); complication rate: NOM (5-32%), open surgical exploration (10-76%). Overall mortality and renal preservation rate were significantly better in the NOM group whereas there was no statistical difference with regard to complication rate. Length of hospital stay was found be significantly reduced in the NOM group. Patients in the open surgical exploration group were more likely to have Grade V injuries, have a lower systolic blood pressure, and higher injury severity score on admission. CONCLUSIONS: No randomised controlled trials were identified and significant heterogeneity existed with regard to outcome reporting. However, NOM appeared to be safe and effective in a stable patient with a higher renal preservation rate, a shorter length of stay, and a comparable complication rate to open surgical exploration. Overall mortality was higher in the open surgical exploration group, though this was likely due to selection bias. PATIENT SUMMARY: The data of this systematic review suggest nonoperative management continues to be favoured to surgical exploration in the management of high-grade renal trauma whenever possible. However, comparisons between both interventions are difficult as patients who have surgery are often more seriously injured than those managed nonoperatively, and existing studies do not report on outcomes consistently.
CONTEXT: The management of high-grade (Grade IV-V) renal injuries remains controversial. There has been an increase in the use of (NOM) but limited data exists comparing outcomes with open surgical exploration. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to determine if NOM is the best first-line option for high-grade renal trauma in terms of safety and effectiveness. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for all relevant publications, without time or language limitations. The primary harm outcome was overall mortality and the primary benefit outcome was renal preservation rate. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay and complication rate. Single-arm studies were included as there were few comparative studies. Only studies with more than 50 patients were included. Data were narratively synthesised in light of methodological and clinical heterogeneity. The risk of bias of each included study was assessed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seven nonrandomised comparative and four single-arm studies were selected for data extraction. Seven hundred and eighty-seven patients were included from the comparative studies with 535 patients in the NOM group and 252 in the open surgical exploration group. A further 825 patients were included from single-arm studies. Results from comparative studies: overall mortality: NOM (0-3%), open surgical exploration (0-29%); renal preservation rate: NOM (84-100%), open surgical exploration (0-82%); complication rate: NOM (5-32%), open surgical exploration (10-76%). Overall mortality and renal preservation rate were significantly better in the NOM group whereas there was no statistical difference with regard to complication rate. Length of hospital stay was found be significantly reduced in the NOM group. Patients in the open surgical exploration group were more likely to have Grade V injuries, have a lower systolic blood pressure, and higher injury severity score on admission. CONCLUSIONS: No randomised controlled trials were identified and significant heterogeneity existed with regard to outcome reporting. However, NOM appeared to be safe and effective in a stable patient with a higher renal preservation rate, a shorter length of stay, and a comparable complication rate to open surgical exploration. Overall mortality was higher in the open surgical exploration group, though this was likely due to selection bias. PATIENT SUMMARY: The data of this systematic review suggest nonoperative management continues to be favoured to surgical exploration in the management of high-grade renal trauma whenever possible. However, comparisons between both interventions are difficult as patients who have surgery are often more seriously injured than those managed nonoperatively, and existing studies do not report on outcomes consistently.
Authors: Behzad Abbasi; Nathan M Shaw; Jason L Lui; Kevin D Li; Architha Sudhakar; Patrick Low; Nizar Hakam; Behnam Nabavizadeh; Benjamin N Breyer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Andrea Katharina Lindner; Anna Katharina Luger; Josef Fritz; Johannes Stäblein; Christian Radmayr; Friedrich Aigner; Peter Rehder; Gennadi Tulchiner; Wolfgang Horninger; Renate Pichler Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 8.165
Authors: Paul Baloche; Nicolas Szabla; Lucas Freton; Marine Hutin; Marina Ruggiero; Ines Dominique; Clementine Millet; Sebastien Bergerat; Paul Panayotopoulos; Reem Betari; Xavier Matillon; Ala Chebbi; Thomas Caes; Pierre-Marie Patard; Nicolas Brichart; Laura Sabourin; Charles Dariane; Michael Baboudjian; Bastien Gondran-Tellier; Cedric Lebacle; François-Xavier Madec; François-Xavier Nouhaud; Xavier Rod; Gaelle Fiard; Benjamin Pradere; Benoit Peyronnet Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-02-08
Authors: Christian Deininger; Thomas Freude; Florian Wichlas; Lukas Konstantin Kriechbaumer; Sebastian Hubertus Markus Deininger; Peter Törzsök; Lukas Lusuardi; Maximilian Pallauf; Amelie Deluca; Susanne Deininger Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 2.374
Authors: Alexander Salcedo; Carlos A Ordoñez; Michael W Parra; José Daniel Osorio; Philip Leib; Yaset Caicedo; Mónica Guzmán-Rodríguez; Natalia Padilla; Luis Fernando Pino; Mario Alain Herrera; Adolfo González Hadad; José Julián Serna; Alberto García; Federico Coccolini; Fausto Catena Journal: Colomb Med (Cali) Date: 2021-05-13
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