Back to Journals » Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management » Volume 13

Operative and nonoperative management for renal trauma: comparison of outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors Mingoli A, La Torre M, Migliori E, Cirillo B, Zambon M, Sapienza P, Brachini G

Received 8 April 2017

Accepted for publication 30 June 2017

Published 31 August 2017 Volume 2017:13 Pages 1127—1138

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S139194

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Hoa Le

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Professor Garry Walsh

Andrea Mingoli,1,2 Marco La Torre,1,2 Emanuele Migliori,1,2 Bruno Cirillo,1,2 Martina Zambon,1,2 Paolo Sapienza,1,2 Gioia Brachini1,2

1Emergency Department, 2Department of Surgery P Valdoni, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Introduction: Preservation of kidney and renal function is the goal of nonoperative management (NOM) of renal trauma (RT). The advantages of NOM for minor blunt RT have already been clearly described, but its value for major blunt and penetrating RT is still under debate. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis on NOM for RT, which was compared with the operative management (OM) with respect to mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LOS).
Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement was followed for this study. A systematic search was performed on Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and PubMed for studies published up to December 2015, without language restrictions, which compared NOM versus OM for renal injuries.
Results: Twenty nonrandomized retrospective cohort studies comprising 13,824 patients with blunt (2,998) or penetrating (10,826) RT were identified. When all RT were considered (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades 1–5), NOM was associated with lower mortality and morbidity rates compared to OM (8.3% vs 17.1%, odds ratio [OR] 0.471; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.404–0.548; P<0.001 and 2% vs 53.3%, OR 0.0484; 95% CI 0.0279–0.0839, P<0.001). Likewise, NOM represented the gold standard treatment resulting in a lower mortality rate compared to OM even when only high-grade RT was considered (9.1% vs 17.9%, OR 0.332; 95% CI 0.155–0.708; P=0.004), be they blunt (4.1% vs 8.1%, OR 0.275; 95% CI 0.0957–0.788; P=0.016) or penetrating (9.1% vs 18.1%, OR 0.468; 95% CI 0.398–0.0552; P<0.001).
Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that NOM for RT is the treatment of choice not only for AAST grades 1 and 2, but also for higher grade blunt and penetrating RT.

Keywords: renal trauma, blunt trauma, penetrating trauma, operative management, nonoperative management, systematic review, meta-analysis

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]

 

Other article by this author:

Hollow viscus injuries: predictors of outcome and role of diagnostic delay

Mingoli A, La Torre M, Brachini G, Costa G, Balducci G, Frezza B, Sgarzini G, Cirillo B

Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2017, 13:1069-1076

Published Date: 23 August 2017