Outcomes and Predictors of Delayed Intervention After Renal Trauma.

Megan G Gross, Dina M. Filiberto, Benjamin Lehrman, Emily K Lenart, Thomas S Easterday, Andrew J. Kerwin, Saskya E. Byerly
{"title":"Outcomes and Predictors of Delayed Intervention After Renal Trauma.","authors":"Megan G Gross, Dina M. Filiberto, Benjamin Lehrman, Emily K Lenart, Thomas S Easterday, Andrew J. Kerwin, Saskya E. Byerly","doi":"10.1177/00031348241246164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\nHistorically, a zone II hematoma mandated exploration after penetrating trauma, but this has been challenged given potentially higher nephrectomy rates and the advent of therapeutic endovascular and endoscopic interventions. We hypothesized penetrating mechanism was not a predictor for delayed intervention in the modern era.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThis single-center, retrospective study included renal trauma patients from 3/2019 to 6/2022. Our institutional practice is selective exploration of zone II hematomas for active bleeding and expanding hematoma only, regardless of mechanism. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression (MLR) were performed.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOne-hundred and forty-four patients were identified, with median age 32 years (IQR:23,49), 66% blunt mechanism, and injury severity score 17(IQR:11,26). Forty-three (30%) required operative intervention, and of the 20 that had a zone II exploration, 3 (15%) underwent renorrhaphy and 17 (85%) underwent nephrectomy. Penetrating patients more frequently underwent immediate operative intervention (67%vs10%,P < .0001), required nephrectomy (27%vs5%,P = .0003), and were less likely to undergo pre-intervention CT (51%vs96%,P < .0001) compared to blunt patients. Delayed renal interventions were higher in penetrating (33%vs13%,P = .004) with no difference in mortality or length of stay compared to blunt mechanism. Ureteral stent placement and renal embolization were the most common delayed interventions. On MLR, the only independent predictor for delayed intervention was need for initial operative intervention (OR 3.803;95%CI:1.612-8.975,P = .0023). Four (3%) required delayed nephrectomy, of which only one underwent initial operative intervention without zone 2 exploration.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe most common delayed interventions after renal trauma were renal embolization and ureteral stent. Penetrating mechanism was not a predictor of delayed renal intervention in a trauma center that manages zone II retroperitoneal hematomas similarly regardless of mechanism.","PeriodicalId":325363,"journal":{"name":"The American Surgeon","volume":"14 4","pages":"31348241246164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241246164","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Historically, a zone II hematoma mandated exploration after penetrating trauma, but this has been challenged given potentially higher nephrectomy rates and the advent of therapeutic endovascular and endoscopic interventions. We hypothesized penetrating mechanism was not a predictor for delayed intervention in the modern era. METHODS This single-center, retrospective study included renal trauma patients from 3/2019 to 6/2022. Our institutional practice is selective exploration of zone II hematomas for active bleeding and expanding hematoma only, regardless of mechanism. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression (MLR) were performed. RESULTS One-hundred and forty-four patients were identified, with median age 32 years (IQR:23,49), 66% blunt mechanism, and injury severity score 17(IQR:11,26). Forty-three (30%) required operative intervention, and of the 20 that had a zone II exploration, 3 (15%) underwent renorrhaphy and 17 (85%) underwent nephrectomy. Penetrating patients more frequently underwent immediate operative intervention (67%vs10%,P < .0001), required nephrectomy (27%vs5%,P = .0003), and were less likely to undergo pre-intervention CT (51%vs96%,P < .0001) compared to blunt patients. Delayed renal interventions were higher in penetrating (33%vs13%,P = .004) with no difference in mortality or length of stay compared to blunt mechanism. Ureteral stent placement and renal embolization were the most common delayed interventions. On MLR, the only independent predictor for delayed intervention was need for initial operative intervention (OR 3.803;95%CI:1.612-8.975,P = .0023). Four (3%) required delayed nephrectomy, of which only one underwent initial operative intervention without zone 2 exploration. CONCLUSIONS The most common delayed interventions after renal trauma were renal embolization and ureteral stent. Penetrating mechanism was not a predictor of delayed renal intervention in a trauma center that manages zone II retroperitoneal hematomas similarly regardless of mechanism.
肾创伤后延迟干预的结果和预测因素
简介从历史上看,穿透性创伤后必须对 II 区血肿进行探查,但随着肾切除率的潜在提高以及治疗性血管内窥镜和内窥镜介入的出现,这种做法受到了挑战。我们假设穿透性机制不是现代延迟介入的预测因素。方法这项单中心回顾性研究纳入了 2019 年 3 月至 2022 年 6 月的肾创伤患者。我们机构的做法是,无论机制如何,只对活动性出血和血肿扩大的 II 区血肿进行选择性探查。结果 共发现 144 例患者,中位年龄 32 岁(IQR:23,49),钝器伤占 66%,损伤严重程度评分 17(IQR:11,26)。43例(30%)患者需要手术干预,在进行II区探查的20例患者中,3例(15%)接受了肾切除术,17例(85%)接受了肾切除术。与钝性患者相比,穿透性患者更常立即进行手术干预(67%vs10%,P < .0001),需要进行肾切除术(27%vs5%,P = .0003),并且更少进行干预前 CT 检查(51%vs96%,P < .0001)。与钝性机制相比,穿透性(33%vs13%,P = .004)肾脏介入治疗的延迟率更高,但死亡率或住院时间没有差异。输尿管支架置入和肾栓塞是最常见的延迟介入治疗。根据 MLR,延迟介入治疗的唯一独立预测因素是是否需要首次手术介入治疗(OR 3.803;95%CI:1.612-8.975,P = .0023)。结论:肾创伤后最常见的延迟干预措施是肾栓塞和输尿管支架。在一个处理II区腹膜后血肿的创伤中心,无论血肿的机制如何,穿透机制都不是延迟肾脏介入治疗的预测因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信