Implementation of a Standardized Renal Trauma Protocol at a Level 1 Trauma Center: 7-Year Protocol and 10-Year Institutional Review.
protocol
renal
review
thromboembolic
trauma
Journal
Research and reports in urology
ISSN: 2253-2447
Titre abrégé: Res Rep Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101576971
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
24
11
2021
accepted:
03
01
2022
entrez:
24
3
2022
pubmed:
25
3
2022
medline:
25
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Current urologic renal trauma guidelines favor conservative management. In 2012, we implemented an institution-wide renal trauma protocol to standardize management. This protocol details initiation of DVT (deep vein thrombosis) prophylaxis, cessation of bed rest, and frequency of laboratory studies. We hypothesized that low-grade injuries (grade I-III) could be managed without urologic consultation and that our chemical DVT prophylaxis regimen would not pose an increased risk of hemorrhage requiring transfusion. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of a prospectively maintained database containing all renal trauma at our institution from 2009 to 2019. We segregated injuries based on grade, presence of multi-organ trauma, and evaluated the presence and types of intervention, initiation of chemical DVT prophylaxis, and post-DVT prophylaxis hemorrhage requiring transfusion. We identified 295 cases of renal trauma, of which 62 were isolated injuries. Forty-three of the isolated renal injuries were transferred from outside facilities, 70% of which were classified as low-grade injuries. There were 220 low-grade lacerations and 75 high-grade lacerations. No grade I or II lacerations required any interventions. Two (2.5%) grade III lacerations required IR embolization. Twenty-five (41%) grade IV lacerations required intervention, of which five were nephrectomy. Seven (54%) grade V lacerations required intervention, of which 5 were nephrectomies. Upon review of our protocol with early ambulation and DVT prophylaxis, there were no cases of isolated renal injury where initiation of either treatment resulted in delayed hemorrhage requiring transfusion or surgical intervention. Only 2/220 low-grade renal lacerations required intervention. Our data suggest that grade I and II renal lacerations can be managed safely without urologic consultation. Consultation is warranted for grade III injuries given the possibility of initial understaging. Furthermore, we believe our renal laceration protocol in our admittedly small, isolated sample has shown our DVT prophylaxis initiation to not pose increased risk.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35321535
doi: 10.2147/RRU.S349504
pii: 349504
pmc: PMC8937305
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
79-85Informations de copyright
© 2022 Werner et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Am J Surg. 2013 May;205(5):517-20; discussion 520
pubmed: 23592157
N Engl J Med. 1994 Dec 15;331(24):1601-6
pubmed: 7969340
Rev Urol. 2011;13(2):65-72
pubmed: 21941463
Ann Surg. 2004 Sep;240(3):490-6; discussion 496-8
pubmed: 15319720
J Trauma. 1997 Jan;42(1):100-3
pubmed: 9003265
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020 Nov;89(5):971-981
pubmed: 32590563
J Urol. 2014 Aug;192(2):327-35
pubmed: 24857651
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019 May;86(5):916-925
pubmed: 30741880
Pediatr Surg Int. 2009 Feb;25(2):125-32
pubmed: 19130062
BJU Int. 2014 Nov;114 Suppl 1:13-21
pubmed: 25124459
BMC Urol. 2008 Sep 03;8:11
pubmed: 18768088
Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2006;:462-6
pubmed: 17124100
Urology. 2018 May;115:92-95
pubmed: 29203185