Acute Kidney Injury: Iterative Development of an Audit Tool for Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury is a low-volume, high-risk complication in trauma patients and is associated with prolonged hospital length of stay and increased mortality. Yet, no audit tools exist to evaluate acute kidney injury in trauma patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the iterative development of an audit tool to evaluate acute kidney injury following trauma. METHODS: Our performance improvement nurses developed an audit tool to evaluate acute kidney injury in trauma patients using an iterative, multiphase process conducted from 2017 to 2021, which included a review of our Trauma Quality Improvement Program data, trauma registry data, literature review, multidisciplinary consensus approach, retrospective and concurrent review, and continuous audit and feedback for piloted and finalized versions of the tool. RESULTS: The final acute kidney injury audit tool can be completed within 30 min using data obtained from the electronic medical record and consists of six sections, including identification criteria, source potential causes, source treatment, acute kidney injury treatment, dialysis indications, and outcome status. CONCLUSION: The iterative development and testing of an acute kidney injury audit tool improved the uniform data collection, documentation, audit, and feedback of best practices to positively impact patient outcomes.

Concomitant bladder and rectal injuries: Results from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multicenter Rectal Injury Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Combined traumatic injuries to the rectum and bladder are rare. We hypothesized that the combination of bladder and rectal injures would have worse outcomes than rectal injury alone. METHODS: This is an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study from 2004 to 2015 traumatic rectal injury patients who were admitted to one of 22 participating centers. Demographics, mechanism, and management of rectal injury were collected. Patients who sustained a rectal injury alone were compared with patients who sustained a combined injury to the bladder and rectum. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine if abdominal complications, mortality, and length of stay were impacted by a concomitant bladder injury after adjusting for cofounders. RESULTS: There were 424 patients who sustained a traumatic rectal injury, of which 117 (28%) had a combined injury to the bladder. When comparing the patients with a combined bladder/rectal injury to the rectal alone group, there was no difference in admission demographics admission physiology, or Injury Severity Score. There were also no differences in management of the rectal injury and no difference in abdominal complications (13% vs. 16%, p = 0.38), mortality (3% vs. 2%, p = 0.68), or length of stay (17 days vs. 21 days, p = 0.10). When looking at only the 117 patients with a combined injury, the addition of a colostomy did not significantly decrease the rate of abdominal complications (14% vs. 8%, p = 0.42), mortality (3% vs. 0%, p = 0.99), or length of stay (17 days vs. 17 days, p = 0.94). After adjusting for cofounders (AAST rectal injury grade, sex, damage-control surgery, diverting colostomy, and length of stay) the presence of a bladder injury did not impact outcomes. CONCLUSION: For patients with traumatic rectal injury, a concomitant bladder injury does not increase the rates of abdominal complications, mortality, or length of stay. Furthermore, the addition of a diverting colostomy for management of traumatic bladder and rectal injury does not change outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; prognostic/therapeutic.

Rectal Injury After Foreign Body Insertion: Secondary Analysis From the AAST Contemporary Management of Rectal Injuries Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Retained rectal foreign bodies are a common but incompletely studied problem. This study defined the epidemiology, injury severity, and outcomes after rectal injuries following foreign body insertion. METHODS: Twenty-two level I trauma centers retrospectively identified all patients sustaining a rectal injury in this AAST multi-institutional trial (2005-2014). Only patients injured by foreign body insertion were included in this secondary analysis. Exclusion criteria were death before rectal injury management or ≤48 h of admission. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were collected. Study groups were defined as partial thickness (AAST grade I) versus full thickness (AAST grades II-V) injuries. Subgroup analysis was performed by management strategy (nonoperative versus operative). RESULTS: After exclusions, 33 patients were identified. Mean age was 41 y (range 18-57), and 85% (n = 28) were male. Eleven (33%) had full thickness injuries and 22 (67%) had partial thickness injuries, of which 14 (64%) were managed nonoperatively and 8 (36%) operatively (proximal diversion alone [n = 3, 14%]; direct repair with proximal diversion [n = 2, 9%]; laparotomy without rectal intervention [n = 2, 9%]; and direct repair alone [n = 1, 5%]). Subgroup analysis of outcomes after partial thickness injury demonstrated significantly shorter hospital length of stay (2 ± 1; 2 [1-5] versus 5 ± 2; 4 [2-8] d, P = 0.0001) after nonoperative versus operative management. CONCLUSIONS: Although partial thickness rectal injuries do not require intervention, difficulty excluding full thickness injuries led some surgeons in this series to manage partial thickness injuries operatively. This was associated with significantly longer hospital length of stay. Therefore, we recommend nonoperative management after a retained rectal foreign body unless full thickness injury is conclusively identified.

Contemporary management of rectal injuries at Level I trauma centers: The results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional study.

INTRODUCTION: Rectal injuries have been historically treated with a combination of modalities including direct repair, resection, proximal diversion, presacral drainage, and distal rectal washout. We hypothesized that intraperitoneal rectal injuries may be selectively managed without diversion and the addition of distal rectal washout and presacral drainage in the management of extraperitoneal injuries are not beneficial. METHODS: This is an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study from 2004 to 2015 of all patients who sustained a traumatic rectal injury and were admitted to one of the 22 participating centers. Demographics, mechanism, location and grade of injury, and management of rectal injury were collected. The primary outcome was abdominal complications (abdominal abscess, pelvic abscess, and fascial dehiscence). RESULTS: After exclusions, there were 785 patients in the cohort. Rectal injuries were intraperitoneal in 32%, extraperitoneal in 58%, both in 9%, and not documented in 1%. Rectal injury severity included the following grades I, 28%; II, 41%; III, 13%; IV, 12%; and V, 5%. Patients with intraperitoneal injury managed with a proximal diversion developed more abdominal complications (22% vs 10%, p = 0.003). Among patients with extraperitoneal injuries, there were more abdominal complications in patients who received proximal diversion (p = 0.0002), presacral drain (p = 0.004), or distal rectal washout (p = 0.002). After multivariate analysis, distal rectal washout [3.4 (1.4-8.5), p = 0.008] and presacral drain [2.6 (1.1-6.1), p = 0.02] were independent risk factors to develop abdominal complications. CONCLUSION: Most patients with intraperitoneal injuries undergo direct repair or resection as well as diversion, although diversion is not associated with improved outcomes. While 20% of patients with extraperitoneal injuries still receive a presacral drain and/or distal rectal washout, these additional maneuvers are independently associated with a three-fold increase in abdominal complications and should not be included in the treatment of extraperitoneal rectal injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level III.

1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3/VDR-mediated induction of FGF23 as well as transcriptional control of other bone anabolic and catabolic genes that orchestrate the regulation of phosphate and calcium mineral metabolism.

1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D(3) (1,25D) is known primarily as a regulator of calcium, but 1,25D also promotes phosphate absorption from intestine, reabsorption from kidney, and bone mineral resorption. FGF23 is a newly discovered phosphaturic hormone that, like PTH, lowers serum phosphate by inhibiting renal reabsorption via Npt2a. We show that 1,25D strongly upregulates FGF23 in bone. FGF23 then represses 1alpha-OHase activity in kidney, thus preventing spiraling induction of FGF23 by 1,25D. We also report that LRP5, Runx2, TRPV6, and Npt2c, all anabolic toward bone, and RANKL, which is catabolic, are transcriptionally regulated by 1,25D. This coordinated regulation together with that of FGF23 and PTH allows 1,25D to play a central role in maintaining calcium and phosphate homeostasis and bone metabolism. In the cases of LRP5, Runx2, TRPV6, and Npt2c we show that transcriptional regulation results at least in part from direct binding of VDR near the relevant gene promoter. Finally, because 1,25D induces FGF23, and FGF23 in turn represses 1,25D synthesis, a reciprocal relationship is established with FGF23 indirectly curtailing 1,25D-mediated intestinal absorption and counterbalancing renal reabsorption of phosphate. This newly revealed FGF23/1,25D/Pi axis is comparable in significance to phosphate and bone metabolism as the PTH/1,25D/Ca axis is to calcium homeostasis.