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.

What is the fate of artificial urinary sphincters among men undergoing repetitive bladder cancer treatment?

PURPOSE: Functional characteristics and durability of the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) among patients who develop bladder cancer has been poorly characterized. We sought to evaluate AUS outcomes among patients subsequently diagnosed with bladder cancer, in order to describe device survivability when subject to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures such as cystoscopy, transurethral resection, and cystectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 1,803 male patients treated with AUS surgery at a single institution between 1983-2014. We describe AUS device outcomes among patients undergoing surveillance and treatment for bladder cancer. RESULTS: Following AUS placement, 14 (0.8%) patients were subsequently diagnosed with and treated for bladder cancer and 4 patients with bladder cancer undergoing treatment and screening, subsequently received AUS placement. The median follow-up from device placement was 7.2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 2.8-11.5), and the median time from AUS placement to bladder cancer diagnosis was 6 (IQR, 0-9). There were a total of 8 primary and 1 secondary devices failures. Despite a median of 2 diagnostic cystoscopies (IQR, 1-6) and 0 bladder tumor resections (IQR, 0-0) per patient following device implantation, only 1 (5.6%) patient experienced an iatrogenic erosion related to urethral manipulation. Among those undergoing cystectomy (n=4), 1 device was left in situ without complication. CONCLUSIONS: Bladder cancer surveillance and treatment with an AUS device in place appears to confer minimal additional risk to AUS survival. Careful attention should be given to device deactivation and use of the smallest caliber instruments available to minimize the risk of iatrogenic urethral erosion.