The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma renal injury grading scale: Implications of the 2018 revisions for injury reclassification and predicting bleeding interventions.

BackgroundIn 2018, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) published revisions to the renal injury grading system to reflect the increased reliance on computed tomography scans and non-operative management of high-grade renal trauma (HGRT). We aimed to evaluate how these revisions will change the grading of HGRT and if it outperforms the original 1989 grading in predicting bleeding control interventions.MethodsData on HGRT were collected from 14 Level-1 trauma centers from 2014 to 2017. Patients with initial computed tomography scans were included. Two radiologists reviewed the scans to regrade the injuries according to the 1989 and 2018 AAST grading systems. Descriptive statistics were used to assess grade reclassifications. Mixed-effect multivariable logistic regression was used to measure the predictive ability of each grading system. The areas under the curves were compared.ResultsOf the 322 injuries included, 27.0% were upgraded, 3.4% were downgraded, and 69.5% remained unchanged. Of the injuries graded as III or lower using the 1989 AAST, 33.5% were upgraded to grade IV using the 2018 AAST. Of the grade V injuries, 58.8% were downgraded using the 2018 AAST. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall areas under the curves between the 2018 and 1989 AAST grading system for predicting bleeding interventions (0.72 vs. 0.68, p = 0.34).ConclusionAbout one third of the injuries previously classified as grade III will be upgraded to grade IV using the 2018 AAST, which adds to the heterogeneity of grade IV injuries. Although the 2018 AAST grading provides more anatomic details on injury patterns and includes important radiologic findings, it did not outperform the 1989 AAST grading in predicting bleeding interventions.Level of evidencePrognostic and Epidemiological Study, level III

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in combat casualties: The past, present, and future.

BackgroundNoncompressible torso hemorrhage is a leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield. Intra-aortic balloon occlusion was first used in combat in the 1950s, but military use was rare before Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. During these wars, the combination of an increasing number of deployed vascular surgeons and a significant rise in deaths from hemorrhage resulted in novel adaptations of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) technology, increasing its potential application in combat. We describe the background of REBOA development in response to a need for minimally invasive intervention for hemorrhage control and provide a detailed review of all published cases (n = 47) of REBOA use for combat casualties. The current limitations of REBOA are described, including distal ischemia and reperfusion injury, as well as ongoing research efforts to adapt REBOA for prolonged use in the austere setting.Level of evidenceLevel V

Penetrating thoracic injury from a bean bag round complicated by development of post-operative empyema.

Bean bag guns were developed as a nonlethal means for law enforcement personnel to subdue individuals. The large surface area and lower velocities of the bean bag round theoretically result in transfer of most of the energy to the skin/subcutaneous tissue and minimize the likelihood of dermal penetration, thereby 'stunning' intended victims without causing injury to deeper structures. However, this technology has been associated with significant intra-abdominal and intrathoracic injuries, skin penetration and death. We present a 59-year-old man who sustained a penetrating thoracic injury from a bean bag gun. Although the bean bag was successfully removed, the patient developed a postoperative empyema requiring operative management. We discuss the unique aspects of thoracic trauma from bean bag ballistics as well as considerations in management of patients with this uncommon mechanism of injury

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

PurposeTo investigate management trends for American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade V renal trauma with focus on non-operative management.MethodsWe 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).ResultsEighty 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.ConclusionSuccessful 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

Contemporary management of high-grade renal trauma: Results from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Genitourinary Trauma study.

BackgroundThe rarity of renal trauma limits its study and the strength of evidence-based guidelines. Although management of renal injuries has shifted toward a nonoperative approach, nephrectomy remains the most common intervention for high-grade renal trauma (HGRT). We aimed to describe the contemporary management of HGRT in the United States and also evaluate clinical factors associated with nephrectomy after HGRT.MethodsFrom 2014 to 2017, data on HGRT (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades III-V) were collected from 14 participating Level-1 trauma centers. Data were gathered on demographics, injury characteristics, management, and short-term outcomes. Management was classified into three groups-expectant, conservative/minimally invasive, and open operative. Descriptive statistics were used to report management of renal trauma. Univariate and multivariate logistic mixed effect models with clustering by facility were used to look at associations between proposed risk factors and nephrectomy.ResultsA total of 431 adult HGRT were recorded; 79% were male, and mechanism of injury was blunt in 71%. Injuries were graded as III, IV, and V in 236 (55%), 142 (33%), and 53 (12%), respectively. Laparotomy was performed in 169 (39%) patients. Overall, 300 (70%) patients were managed expectantly and 47 (11%) underwent conservative/minimally invasive management. Eighty-four (19%) underwent renal-related open operative management with 55 (67%) of them undergoing nephrectomy. Nephrectomy rates were 15% and 62% for grades IV and V, respectively. Penetrating injuries had significantly higher American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades and higher rates of nephrectomy. In multivariable analysis, only renal injury grade and penetrating mechanism of injury were significantly associated with undergoing nephrectomy.ConclusionExpectant and conservative management is currently utilized in 80% of HGRT; however, the rate of nephrectomy remains high. Clinical factors, such as surrogates of hemodynamic instability and metabolic acidosis, are associated with nephrectomy for HGRT; however, higher renal injury grade and penetrating trauma remain the strongest associations.Level of evidencePrognostic/epidemiologic study, level III; Therapeutic study, level IV

The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma renal injury grading scale: Implications of the 2018 revisions for injury reclassification and predicting bleeding interventions.

BackgroundIn 2018, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) published revisions to the renal injury grading system to reflect the increased reliance on computed tomography scans and non-operative management of high-grade renal trauma (HGRT). We aimed to evaluate how these revisions will change the grading of HGRT and if it outperforms the original 1989 grading in predicting bleeding control interventions.MethodsData on HGRT were collected from 14 Level-1 trauma centers from 2014 to 2017. Patients with initial computed tomography scans were included. Two radiologists reviewed the scans to regrade the injuries according to the 1989 and 2018 AAST grading systems. Descriptive statistics were used to assess grade reclassifications. Mixed-effect multivariable logistic regression was used to measure the predictive ability of each grading system. The areas under the curves were compared.ResultsOf the 322 injuries included, 27.0% were upgraded, 3.4% were downgraded, and 69.5% remained unchanged. Of the injuries graded as III or lower using the 1989 AAST, 33.5% were upgraded to grade IV using the 2018 AAST. Of the grade V injuries, 58.8% were downgraded using the 2018 AAST. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall areas under the curves between the 2018 and 1989 AAST grading system for predicting bleeding interventions (0.72 vs. 0.68, p = 0.34).ConclusionAbout one third of the injuries previously classified as grade III will be upgraded to grade IV using the 2018 AAST, which adds to the heterogeneity of grade IV injuries. Although the 2018 AAST grading provides more anatomic details on injury patterns and includes important radiologic findings, it did not outperform the 1989 AAST grading in predicting bleeding interventions.Level of evidencePrognostic and Epidemiological Study, level III

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

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

PurposeWe 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 methodsWe 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.ResultsFrom 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).ConclusionsIn 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

The associations between initial radiographic findings and interventions for renal hemorrhage after high-grade renal trauma: Results from the Multi-Institutional Genitourinary Trauma Study.

BackgroundIndications for intervention after high-grade renal trauma (HGRT) remain poorly defined. Certain radiographic findings can be used to guide the management of HGRT. We aimed to assess the associations between initial radiographic findings and interventions for hemorrhage after HGRT and to determine hematoma and laceration sizes predicting interventions.MethodsThe Genitourinary Trauma Study is a multicenter study including HGRT patients from 14 Level I trauma centers from 2014 to 2017. Admission computed tomography scans were categorized based on multiple variables, including vascular contrast extravasation (VCE), hematoma rim distance (HRD), and size of the deepest laceration. Renal bleeding interventions included angioembolization, surgical packing, renorrhaphy, partial nephrectomy, and nephrectomy. Mixed-effect Poisson regression was used to assess the associations. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to define optimal cutoffs for HRD and laceration size.ResultsIn the 326 patients, injury mechanism was blunt in 81%. Forty-seven (14%) patients underwent 51 bleeding interventions, including 19 renal angioembolizations, 16 nephrectomies, and 16 other procedures. In univariable analysis, presence of VCE was associated with a 5.9-fold increase in risk of interventions, and each centimeter increase in HRD was associated with 30% increase in risk of bleeding interventions. An HRD of 3.5 cm or greater and renal laceration depth of 2.5 cm or greater were most predictive of interventions. In multivariable models, VCE and HRD were significantly associated with bleeding interventions.ConclusionOur findings support the importance of certain radiographic findings in prediction of bleeding interventions after HGRT. These factors can be used as adjuncts to renal injury grading to guide clinical decision making.Level of evidencePrognostic and Epidemiological Study, Level III and Therapeutic/Care Management, Level IV

The Associations Between Initial Radiographic Findings and Interventions for Renal Hemorrhage After High-Grade Renal Trauma: Results from the Multi-institutional Genito-Urinary Trauma Study (MiGUTS).

BACKGROUND:Indications for intervention after high-grade renal trauma (HGRT) remain poorly defined. Certain radiographic findings can be used to guide the management of HGRT. We aimed to assess the associations between initial radiographic findings and interventions for hemorrhage after HGRT and to determine hematoma and laceration sizes predicting interventions. METHODS:The Genito-Urinary Trauma Study is a multi-center study including HGRT patients from 14 Level-1 trauma centers from 2014-2017. Admission CT scans were categorized based upon multiple variables, including vascular contrast extravasation (VCE), hematoma rim distance (HRD), and size of the deepest laceration. Renal bleeding interventions included: angioembolization, surgical packing, renorrhaphy, partial nephrectomy, and nephrectomy. Mixed effect Poisson regression was used to assess the associations. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to define optimal cut-offs for HRD and laceration size. RESULTS:In the 326 patients, injury mechanism was blunt in 81%. Forty-seven patients (14%) underwent 51 bleeding interventions including 19 renal angioembolizations, 16 nephrectomies, and 16 other procedures. In univariable analysis, presence of VCE was associated with a 5.9-fold increase in risk of interventions, and each centimeter increase in HRD was associated with 30% increase in risk of bleeding interventions. An HRD ≥3.5cm and renal laceration depth of ≥2.5cm were most predictive of interventions. In multivariable models, VCE and HRD were significantly associated with bleeding interventions. CONCLUSION:Our findings support the importance of certain radiographic findings in prediction of bleeding interventions after HGRT. These factors can be used as adjuncts to renal injury grading to guide clinical decision making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Prognostic and Epidemiological Study, Level III