BACKGROUND: To determine which patients need a "one-shot" intravenous pyelogram (IVP) before laparotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma. STUDY DESIGN: Over a 15-month period, 240 laparotomies were performed for penetrating trauma at our urban level I trauma center. Prospectively collected data included clinical suspicion of genitourinary injury, results of preoperative IVP, intraoperative findings, and operative decisions influenced by the IVP. RESULTS: Preoperative IVP was performed in 175 patients (73%). Of these, 71 (41%) had suspicion of a renal injury based on the presence of a flank wound or gross hematuria. The IVP was believed to influence operative decisions in six patients, all in this group. Each of these six patients had either a shattered kidney or a renovascular injury and had a nephrectomy performed with the knowledge that a normal functioning kidney was present on the contralateral side. No patient without a flank wound or gross hematuria had an IVP that was judged to be helpful intraoperatively. Preoperative IVP was helpful only in patients with flank wounds or gross hematuria. Nephrectomy was performed in two additional patients who did not undergo IVP, both of whom presented in shock. CONCLUSIONS: Routine preoperative IVP is not necessary in all patients undergoing laparotomy for penetrating trauma. The number of IVPs can be safely reduced by 60% if the indications are narrowed to include only those stable patients with a flank wound or gross hematuria.
BACKGROUND: To determine which patients need a "one-shot" intravenous pyelogram (IVP) before laparotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma. STUDY DESIGN: Over a 15-month period, 240 laparotomies were performed for penetrating trauma at our urban level I trauma center. Prospectively collected data included clinical suspicion of genitourinary injury, results of preoperative IVP, intraoperative findings, and operative decisions influenced by the IVP. RESULTS: Preoperative IVP was performed in 175 patients (73%). Of these, 71 (41%) had suspicion of a renal injury based on the presence of a flank wound or gross hematuria. The IVP was believed to influence operative decisions in six patients, all in this group. Each of these six patients had either a shattered kidney or a renovascular injury and had a nephrectomy performed with the knowledge that a normal functioning kidney was present on the contralateral side. No patient without a flank wound or gross hematuria had an IVP that was judged to be helpful intraoperatively. Preoperative IVP was helpful only in patients with flank wounds or gross hematuria. Nephrectomy was performed in two additional patients who did not undergo IVP, both of whom presented in shock. CONCLUSIONS: Routine preoperative IVP is not necessary in all patients undergoing laparotomy for penetrating trauma. The number of IVPs can be safely reduced by 60% if the indications are narrowed to include only those stable patients with a flank wound or gross hematuria.
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: Charlotte Goldman; Nathan Shaw; Danelo du Plessis; Jeremy B Myers; Andre van der Merwe; Krishnan Venkatesan Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2021-06