PROPOSED REVISION OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR SURGERY OF TRAUMA RENAL TRAUMA ORGAN INJURY SCALE: SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF THE MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL GENITOURINARY TRAUMA STUDY.

BACKGROUND: This study updates the American Association for Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Organ Injury Scale (OIS) for renal trauma using evidence-based criteria for bleeding control intervention. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multi-center retrospective study including patients with high grade renal trauma from 7 Level-1 trauma centers from 2013-2018. All eligible patients were assigned new renal trauma grades based on revised criteria. The primary outcome used to measure injury severity was intervention for renal bleeding. Secondary outcomes included intervention for urinary extravasation, units of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) transfused within 24 hours, and mortality. To test the revised grading system, we performed mixed effect logistic regression adjusted for multiple baseline demographic and trauma covariates. We determined the area under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) to assess accuracy of predicting bleeding interventions from the revised grading system and compared this to 2018 AAST organ injury scale. RESULTS: based on the 2018 OIS grading system, we included 549 patients with AAST Grade III-V injuries and CT scans (III: 52% (n = 284), IV: 45% (n = 249), and V: 3% (n = 16)). Among these patients, 89% experienced blunt injury (n = 491) and 12% (n = 64) underwent intervention for bleeding. After applying the revised grading criteria, 60% (n = 329) of patients were downgraded and 4% (n = 23) were upgraded; 2.8% (n = 7) downgraded from grade V to IV, and 69.5% (n = 173) downgraded from IV to III. The revised renal trauma grading system demonstrated improved predictive ability for bleeding interventions (2018 AUC = 0.805, revised AUC = 0.883; p = 0.001) and number of units of PRBCs transfused. When we removed urinary injury from the revised system, there was no difference in its predictive ability for renal hemorrhage intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A revised renal trauma grading system better delineates the need for hemostatic interventions than the current AAST OIS renal trauma grading system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Grade V renal trauma management: results from the multi-institutional genito-urinary trauma study.

PURPOSE: To investigate management trends for American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade V renal trauma with focus on non-operative management. METHODS: We used prospectively collected data as part of the Multi-institutional Genito-Urinary Trauma Study (MiGUTS). We included patients with grade V renal trauma according to the AAST Injury Scoring Scale 2018 update. All cases submitted by participating centers with radiology images available were independently reviewed to confirm renal trauma grade. Management was classified as expectant, conservative (minimally invasive, endoscopic or percutaneous procedures), or operative (renal-related surgery). RESULTS: Eighty patients were included, 25 of whom had complete imaging and had independent confirmation of AAST grade V renal trauma. Median age was 35 years (Interquartile range (IQR) 25-50) and 23 (92%) had blunt trauma. Ten patients (40%) were managed operatively with nephrectomy. Conservative management was used in nine patients (36%) of which six received angioembolization and three had a stent or drainage tube placed. Expectant management was followed in six (24%) patients. Transfusion requirements were progressively higher with groups requiring more aggressive treatment, and injury characteristics differed significantly across management groups in terms of hematoma size and laceration size. Vascular contrast extravasation was more likely in operatively managed patients though a statistically significant association was not found. CONCLUSION: Successful use of nonoperative management for grade V injuries is used for a substantial subset of patients. Lower transfusion requirement and less severe injury radiologic phenotype appear to be important characteristics delineating this group.

Shattered Kidney After Renal Trauma: Should It Be Classified As an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Grade V Injury?

OBJECTIVE: To study the prevalence and management of shattered kidney and to evaluate if the new description of "loss of identifiable renal anatomy" in the 2018 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) organ injury scale (OIS) would improve the ability to predict bleeding control interventions. METHODS: We used high-grade renal trauma data from 21 Level-1 trauma centers from 2013 to 2018. Initial CT scans were reviewed to identify shattered kidneys, defined as a kidney having ≥3 parenchymal fragments displaced by blood or fluid on cross-sectional imaging. We further categorized patients with shattered kidney in two models based on loss of identifiable renal parenchymal anatomy and presence or absence of vascular contrast extravasation (VCE). Bleeding interventions were compared between the groups. RESULTS: From 861 high-grade renal trauma patients, 41 (4.8%) had shattered kidney injury. 25 (61%) underwent a bleeding control intervention including 18 (43.9%) nephrectomies and 11 (26.8%) angioembolizations. 18 (41%) had shattered kidney with "loss of identifiable parenchymal renal anatomy" per 2018 AAST OIS (model-1). 28 (68.3%) had concurrent VCE (model-2). Model-2 had a statistically significant improvement in area under the curve over model-1 in predicting bleeding interventions (0.75 vs 0.72; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Shattered kidney is associated with high rates of active bleeding, urinary extravasation, and interventions including nephrectomy. The definition of shattered kidney is vague and subjective and our definition might be simpler and more reproducible. Loss of identifiable renal anatomy per the 2018 AAST OIS did not provide better distinction for bleeding control interventions over presence of VCE.

Nephrectomy After High-Grade Renal Trauma is Associated With Higher Mortality: Results From the Multi-Institutional Genitourinary Trauma Study (MiGUTS).

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that undergoing nephrectomy after high-grade renal trauma is associated with higher mortality rates. METHODS: We gathered data from 21 Level-1 trauma centers through the Multi-institutional Genito-Urinary Trauma Study. Patients with high-grade renal trauma were included. We assessed the association between nephrectomy and mortality in all patients and in subgroups of patients after excluding those who died within 24 hours of hospital arrival and those with GCS≤8. We controlled for age, injury severity score (ISS), shock (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). RESULTS: A total of 1181 high-grade renal trauma patients were included. Median age was 31 and trauma mechanism was blunt in 78%. Injuries were graded as III, IV, and V in 55%, 34%, and 11%, respectively. There were 96 (8%) mortalities and 129 (11%) nephrectomies. Mortality was higher in the nephrectomy group (21.7% vs 6.5%, P <.001). Those who died were older, had higher ISS, lower GCS, and higher rates of shock. After adjusting for patient and injury characteristics nephrectomy was still associated with higher risk of death (RR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.26-2.55). CONCLUSION: Nephrectomy was associated with higher mortality in the acute trauma setting even when controlling for shock, overall injury severity, and head injury. These results may have implications in decision making in acute trauma management for patients not in extremis from renal hemorrhage.

External validation of a nomogram predicting risk of bleeding control interventions after high-grade renal trauma: The Multi-institutional Genito-Urinary Trauma Study.

BACKGROUND: Renal trauma grading has a limited ability to distinguish patients who will need intervention after high-grade renal trauma (HGRT). A nomogram incorporating both clinical and radiologic factors has been previously developed to predict bleeding control interventions after HGRT. We aimed to externally validate this nomogram using multicenter data from level 1 trauma centers. METHODS: We gathered data from seven level 1 trauma centers. Patients with available initial computed tomography (CT) scans were included. Each CT scan was reviewed by two radiologists blinded to the intervention data. Nomogram variables included trauma mechanism, hypotension/shock, concomitant injuries, vascular contrast extravasation (VCE), pararenal hematoma extension, and hematoma rim distance (HRD). Mixed-effect logistic regression was used to assess the associations between the predictors and bleeding intervention. The prediction accuracy of the nomogram was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and its 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Overall, 569 HGRT patients were included for external validation. Injury mechanism was blunt in 89%. Using initial CT scans, 14% had VCE and median HRD was 1.7 (0.9-2.6) cm. Overall, 12% underwent bleeding control interventions including 34 angioembolizations and 24 nephrectomies. In the multivariable analysis, presence of VCE was associated with a threefold increase in the odds of bleeding interventions (odds ratio, 3.06; 95% CI, 1.44-6.50). Every centimeter increase in HRD was associated with 66% increase in odds of bleeding interventions. External validation of the model provided excellent discrimination in predicting bleeding interventions with an area under the curve of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84-0.92). CONCLUSION: Our results reinforce the importance of radiologic findings such as VCE and hematoma characteristics in predicting bleeding control interventions after renal trauma. The prediction accuracy of the proposed nomogram remains high using external data. These variables can help to better risk stratify high-grade renal injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological study, level III.

Clinical and Radiographic Factors Associated With Failed Renal Angioembolization: Results From the Multi-institutional Genitourinary Trauma Study (Mi-GUTS).

OBJECTIVE: To find clinical or radiographic factors that are associated with angioembolization failure after high-grade renal trauma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients were selected from the Multi-institutional Genito-Urinary Trauma Study. Included were patients who initially received renal angioembolization after high-grade renal trauma (AAST grades III-V). This cohort was dichotomized into successful or failed angioembolization. Angioembolization was considered a failure if angioembolization was followed by repeat angiography and/or an exploratory laparotomy. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients underwent management initially with angioembolization, with failure in 18 (27%) patients. Those with failed angioembolization had a larger proportion ofgrade IV (72% vs 53%) and grade V (22% vs 12%) renal injuries. A total of 53 patients underwent renal angioembolization and had initial radiographic data for review, with failure in 13 cases. The failed renal angioembolization group had larger perirenal hematoma sizes on the initial trauma scan. CONCLUSION: Angioembolization after high-grade renal trauma failed in 27% of patients. Failed angioembolization was associated with higher injury grade and a larger perirenal hematoma. Likely these characteristics are associated with high-grade renal trauma that may be less amenable to successful treatment after a single renal angioembolization.

The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Renal Grading System-Should Segmental Kidney Infarction be Classified as a Grade IV Injury?

PURPOSE: In 2018 the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma revised renal injury grading. One change was inclusion of segmental kidney infarction under grade IV injuries. We aimed to assess how segmental kidney infarction will change the scope of grade IV injuries and compare bleeding control interventions in those with and without isolated segmental kidney infarction. METHODS: We used high grade renal trauma data from 7 level 1 trauma centers from 2013 to 2018 as part of the Multi-institutional Genito-Urinary Trauma Study. Initial computerized tomography scans were reviewed to regrade the injuries. Injuries were categorized as isolated segmental kidney infarction if segmental parenchymal infarction was the only reason for inclusion under grade IV injury. All other grade IV injuries (including combined injury patterns) were categorized as without isolated segmental kidney infarction. Bleeding interventions were compared between those with and without isolated segmental kidney infarction. RESULTS: From 550 patients with high grade renal trauma and available computerized tomography, 250 (45%) were grade IV according to the 2018 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grading system. Of these, 121 (48%) had isolated segmental kidney infarction. The majority of patients with isolated segmental kidney infarction (88%) would have been assigned a lower grade using the original 1989 grading system. Rate of bleeding control interventions was lower in isolated segmental kidney infarction compared to other grade IV injuries (7% vs 21%, p=0.002). Downgrading all patients with isolated segmental kidney infarction to grade III did not change the grading system's associations with bleeding interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of the 2018 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grade IV injuries have isolated segmental kidney infarction. Including isolated segmental kidney infarction in grade IV injuries increases the heterogeneity of these injuries without increasing the grading system's ability to predict bleeding interventions. In future iterations of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma renal trauma grading isolated segmental kidney infarction could be reclassified as grade III injury.

Current Management of Extraperitoneal Bladder Injuries: Results from the Multi-Institutional Genito-Urinary Trauma Study (MiGUTS).

PURPOSE: We studied the current management trends for extraperitoneal bladder injuries and evaluated the use of operative repair versus catheter drainage, and the associated complications with each approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively collected data on bladder trauma from 20 level 1 trauma centers across the United States from 2013 to 2018. We excluded patients with intraperitoneal bladder injury and those who died within 24 hours of hospital arrival. We separated patients with extraperitoneal bladder injuries into 2 groups (catheter drainage vs operative repair) based on their initial management within the first 4 days and compared the rates of bladder injury related complications among them. Regression analyses were used to identify potential predictors of complications. RESULTS: From 323 bladder injuries we included 157 patients with extraperitoneal bladder injuries. Concomitant injuries occurred in 139 (88%) patients with pelvic fracture seen in 79%. Sixty-seven patients (43%) initially underwent operative repair for their extraperitoneal bladder injuries. The 3 most common reasons for operative repair were severity of injury or bladder neck injury (40%), injury found during laparotomy (39%) and concern for pelvic hardware contamination (28%). Significant complications were identified in 23% and 19% of the catheter drainage and operative repair groups, respectively (p=0.55). The only statistically significant predictor for complications was bladder neck or urethral injury (RR 2.69, 95% 1.21-5.97, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this large multi-institutional cohort, 43% of patients underwent surgical repair for initial management of extraperitoneal bladder injuries. We found no significant difference in complications between the initial management strategies of catheter drainage and operative repair. The most significant predictor for complications was concomitant urethral or bladder neck injury.