Outcomes and Predictors of Delayed Intervention After Renal Trauma.

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.

Clinical Implications of Over- and Under-Triage Using Need for Trauma Intervention and Cribari Indices.

BACKGROUND: Need for Trauma Intervention (NFTI) score was proposed to help identify injured trauma patients while minimizing under (UT) and over triage (OT). Using a national database, we aimed to describe UT and OT of NFTI vs standard Cribari method (CM) and hypothesized triage sensitivity remains poor. METHODS: The 2021 Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database was queried. Demographics, mechanism, verification level, interfacility transfer (IF), and level of activation were collected. Patients were stratified by both NFTI [+ vs -] and CM [Injury severity score (ISS) < 15 vs > 15]. UT was defined as NFTI + or ISS >15 without full trauma activation. RESULTS: 1,030,526 patients were identified in TQIP. 84,969 were UT and 97,262 were OT using NFTI while 94,020 were UT and 108,823 were OT using CM. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of NFTI is 49%, 89%, 45%, and 90%, respectively vs 43%, 87%, 39%, and 89% of CM, respectively. Age was higher in the UT group using both scores (52 vs 42, P < .0001 and 54 vs 42, P < .0001, respectively). Using MLR, level 2 and 3 verification, blunt mechanism, female, IF, and older age were associated with UT in both NFTI and CM. Level 1 verification, penetrating mechanism, male, no IF, and younger age were associated with OT. CONCLUSIONS: Current prehospital triage criteria have poor sensitivity for identifying severely injured trauma patients by both NFTI and CM. UT increases as age of the patient increases. Further studies are needed to improve triage.

Sugarbaker Versus Keyhole Repair for Parastomal Hernia: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Parastomal hernia is a debilitating complication of stoma creation. Parastomal hernia repair with mesh reduces recurrence rates in open and laparoscopic settings. Recent comparative studies conflict with previously pooled data on optimal mesh repair technique. The objective of this study is to examine parastomal hernia recurrence rates after Sugarbaker and keyhole repairs by performing an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane database, SCOPUS, and the PROSPERO registry was performed according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021290483). Studies comparing parastomal hernia recurrences after Sugarbaker and keyhole repairs were included. Studies with overlapping patient cohorts (duplicate data), non-comparative studies, studies that did not report the primary outcome of interest, and studies not in the English language were excluded. Study bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Pooled mean differences (MD), odds ratios (OR), and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Forest plots and funnel plots were generated. Study quality was analyzed using MINORS. Additional subgroup analysis of modern studies was performed. RESULTS: Ten comparative studies published between 2005 and 2021 from 5 countries were included for analysis comprising 347 Sugarbaker repairs and 246 keyhole repairs. There were no differences in patient age, sex, or BMI between the groups. There was no difference between the groups regarding surgical site infection (OR 0.78; CI 0.31-1.98; P = 0.61) or post-operative bowel obstruction (OR 0.76; CI 0.23-2.56; P = 0.66). Sugarbaker repairs were significantly less often associated with parastomal hernia recurrence when compared to keyhole repairs (OR 0.38; CI 0.18-0.78; P = 0.008). There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies comparing parastomal hernia recurrence (I2 = 32%; P = 0.15). Quality analysis revealed a median MINORS score of 11 (range 6-16). Subgroup analysis of studies performed after the previously published pooled analysis (2015-2021) revealed no significant difference in parastomal hernia recurrence between the two groups (OR 0.58; CI 0.24-1.38; P = 0.22) with a significant subgroup effect (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Though there were lower rates of parastomal hernia recurrence with Sugarbaker repairs on overall analysis, this phenomenon disappeared on subgroup analysis of modern studies. Randomized controlled trials with contemporary cohorts would help further evaluate these repairs and minimize potential bias.