Managing penetrating renal trauma: experience from two major trauma centres in the UK. (13th March 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hadjipavlou, Marios; Grouse, Edmund; Gray, Robert; Sri, Denosshan; Huang, Dean; Brown, Christian; Sharma, Davendra
• Is Part Of: BJU international. Volume 121:Number 6(2018)
• Page Start: 928
• Page End: 934
• Publication Date: 2018-03-13
• Subjects: penetrating trauma -- renal injury -- trauma -- renal artery embolization; Genitourinary organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Genitourinary organs -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1111/bju.14165
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1464-4096

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: To present our series of patients with penetrating renal trauma treated at two urban major trauma centres and to discuss the contemporary management of such injuries. Methods: We reviewed prospective urological trauma databases for all patients presenting with penetrating renal trauma between January 2005 and October 2016. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, imaging, management and follow‐up data were analysed. Results: Over the 11‐year period, 63 patients presented with penetrating renal injuries. The vast majority of patients were male ( n = 61; 96.8%), with a mean (range) age of 27.4 (14–71) years. Injuries were equally common on either side (31 left, 32 right). The most common mechanism of injury was stabbing ( n = 55; 87.3%), followed by gunshot ( n = 7; 11.1%) and crossbow injuries ( n = 1; 1.6%). All patients underwent contrast‐enhanced computed tomography. Using the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma renal injury grading system, 11 (17.5%) had grade II, 26 (41.3%) had grade III and 26 (41.3%) had grade IV injury. The most common associated injuries were thoracic ( n = 23; 36.5%), liver ( n = 11; 17.5%), splenic ( n = 10; 15.9%), gastrointestinal tract ( n = 8; 12.7%) and musculoskeletal ( n = 6; 9.5%). At presentation, 16 patients (25.4%) were haemodynamically unstable. The majority of patients did not require blood transfusion ( n = 56; 88.9%), while transfusion of >5 units was rare ( n = 4; 6.3%). Fifty‐two patients (82.5%) were managed by observation alone, while 10 (15.9%) underwent emergency angiography and embolization. Patients with grade IV injury were more likely to require embolization than those with grade III injury; however, the difference was not significant (26.9% vs 15.4%; P = 0.29). One patient (1.6%) underwent retroperitoneal exploration of their renal injury and was managed conservatively. Eight patients underwent laparotomy for other visceral injuries while their renal injury was managed conservatively. Renal artery pseudoaneurysm developed in five patients (7.9%) and one patient (1.6%) developed renal arteriovenous malformation. No patients underwent nephrectomy and no mortality was reported. Conclusions: The vast majority of patients with penetrating renal injuries can be safely managed non‐operatively in this setting. Selective renal artery embolization is an effective option for patients in an unstable condition, with excellent outcomes. Associated thoracic or visceral injuries requiring operative management are common in penetrating renal trauma, while urologists should limit or have a high threshold for surgical intervention.