David B Bayne1, Anas Tresh2, Nima Baradaran2, Gregory Murphy3, E Charles Osterberg4, Shellee Ogawa3, Jessica Wenzel4, Lindsay Hampson2, Jack McAninch2, Benjamin Breyer2. 1. University of California San Francisco, Urology, 400 Parnassus Ave, 6th Floor Urology Clinics A638, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. david.bayne@ucsf.edu. 2. University of California San Francisco, Urology, 400 Parnassus Ave, 6th Floor Urology Clinics A638, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. 3. Urology Center for Advanced Medicine, Urologic Surgery Center, Washington University in Saint Louis, 4921 Parkview Place, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 4. University of Texas at Austin Health Transformation Building, 1601 Trinity Street, Suite 704, Austin, TX, 94143, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Guidelines call for routine reimaging of Grade 4-5 renal injuries at 48-72 h. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the clinical utility of computed tomography (CT) reimaging in high-grade renal injuries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assembled data on 216 trauma patients with high-grade renal trauma at three level 1 trauma centers over a 19-year span between 1999 and 2017 in retrospectively collected trauma database. Demographic, radiographic, and clinical characteristics of patients were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: In total, 151 cases were Grade 4 renal injuries, and 65 were Grade 5 renal injuries. 53.6% (81) Grade 4 and 15.4% (10) Grade 5 renal injuries were initially managed conservatively. Of the 6 asymptomatic cases where repeat imaging resulted in intervention, 100% had collecting system injuries at initial imaging. Collecting system injuries were only present in 42.9% of cases where routine repeat imaging did not trigger surgical intervention. Collecting system injury at the time of initial imaging was a statistically significant predictor of routine repeat imaging triggering surgical intervention (p = 0.022). Trauma grade and the presence of vascular injury were not significant predictors of intervention after repeat imaging in asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSION: In asymptomatic patients with high-grade renal trauma, the number needed to image is approximately one in eight (12.5%) to identify need for surgical intervention. There is potentially room to improve criteria for routine renal imaging in high-grade renal trauma based on the more predictive imaging finding of collecting system injury.
PURPOSE: Guidelines call for routine reimaging of Grade 4-5 renal injuries at 48-72 h. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the clinical utility of computed tomography (CT) reimaging in high-grade renal injuries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assembled data on 216 traumapatients with high-grade renal trauma at three level 1 trauma centers over a 19-year span between 1999 and 2017 in retrospectively collected trauma database. Demographic, radiographic, and clinical characteristics of patients were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: In total, 151 cases were Grade 4 renal injuries, and 65 were Grade 5 renal injuries. 53.6% (81) Grade 4 and 15.4% (10) Grade 5 renal injuries were initially managed conservatively. Of the 6 asymptomatic cases where repeat imaging resulted in intervention, 100% had collecting system injuries at initial imaging. Collecting system injuries were only present in 42.9% of cases where routine repeat imaging did not trigger surgical intervention. Collecting system injury at the time of initial imaging was a statistically significant predictor of routine repeat imaging triggering surgical intervention (p = 0.022). Trauma grade and the presence of vascular injury were not significant predictors of intervention after repeat imaging in asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSION: In asymptomatic patients with high-grade renal trauma, the number needed to image is approximately one in eight (12.5%) to identify need for surgical intervention. There is potentially room to improve criteria for routine renal imaging in high-grade renal trauma based on the more predictive imaging finding of collecting system injury.
Authors: James McGuire; Matthew F Bultitude; Paul Davis; Jim Koukounaras; Peter L Royce; Niall M Corcoran Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-11-13 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Shahrokh F Shariat; Adam Jenkins; Claus G Roehrborn; Jose A Karam; Key H Stage; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-04-24 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Hunter Wessells; Donald Suh; James R Porter; Frederick Rivara; Ellen J MacKenzie; Gregory J Jurkovich; Avery B Nathens Journal: J Trauma Date: 2003-03
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