Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / @xirurgi_2025 / @xirurgi_2025 - 474 - файл

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
29.08.2026
Размер:
33 Мб
Скачать
42
https://t.me/medicina_free
5 Grading ofRenal Trauma
(Glasgow Coma Scale score28), acidosis (base decit ≤−6.0), coagulopathy (PTT40s or INR1.4), and age (70years) [2].
The BPD was subsequently validated by many studies including a recent Dutch observational study [7]. Well before a consensus was reached to dene polytrauma, its physiopathology was intensively studied, and Gebhard and Huber-Lang pro­posed the following critical events [1]:
– Danger-sensing molecules phase: coagulation cascade, kallikrein-kinin system,
complement system, acute phase reaction
– Trauma-induced complementopathy – Trauma-induced intravascular coagulopathy (TIC) – Trauma-induced neuroinammation
In 1974, Baker etal. introduced a method for describing patients presenting with multiple injuries to evaluate their prognosis and emergency priorities: The Injury
Severity Score (ISS), which was developed from the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) [8]. They dened the ISS as the sum of the squares of the highest AIS grade
in each of the three most severely injured areas, with the purpose of dramatically increasing the correlation between the severity of the injury and the mortality, com­pared with the AIS.
2
Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) [5, 6]:
Parameters:
Best eye response (4 points)
– No eye opening: 1 – Eye opening to pain: 2 – Eye opening to sound: 3 – Eyes open spontaneously: 4
Best verbal response (5 points)
– No verbal response: 1 – Incomprehensible sounds: 2 – Inappropriate words: 3 – Confused: 4 – Orientated: 5
Best motor response (6 points)
– No motor response: 1 – Abnormal extension to pain: 2 – Abnormal exion to pain: 3 – Withdrawal from pain: 4 – Localizing pain: 5 – Obeys commands: 6
Total score:
GCS 3–8: severe GCS 9–12: moderate GCS 13–15: mild
5 Grading ofRenal Trauma
https://t.me/medicina_free
43
The ISS is allocated a marking from 0 to 75 and correlates linearly with mortal­ity, morbidity, and hospital stay. The ISS has been validated and categorized as fol­lows [9]:
• <9=Mild
• 9–15=Moderate
• 16–24=Severe
25=Profound
Therefore, major trauma is dened by ISS >15.
Progressing further in our discussion, it is important to avoid confusing kidney trauma with acute renal injury (AKI), and a bracket is opened in the following paragraphs to elucidate this concept. AKI is dened as a sudden loss of kidney func­tion arising from multiple causes such as sepsis, hypovolemic shock, drugs, and so on. AKI may develop in a polytrauma patient with or without a direct physical hit to the kidneys. According to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Guidelines (KDIGO), AKI has three stages and is dened by any of the following: an increase in serum creatinine (SCr) by 0.3mg/dL (≥26.5μmol/L) within 48h; or an increase in SCr to 1.5 times baseline, which is known or presumed to have occurred within the prior 7days; urine volume0.5mL/kg/h for 6h [10]. The duration of AKI is limited to 7days. Beyond this limit, the pathology will be called acute kidney dis­ease or disorder, and if persisting for more than 3months, the term will change to chronic kidney disease [11].
Following polytrauma, AKI is triggered by massive hemorrhage, systemic inammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and multiple-organ dysfunction syn­drome (MODS). Two or more criteria have to be fullled to dene a SIRS: Temperature>38.8 or<36°C, tachycardia >90 beats/min, tachypnea >20breaths/ min or PaCO2 <32mmHg, leukocytes >12,000/mm3 or leukopenia <4000/mm3, or>10% immature neutrophils [12].
AKI associated with trauma has a high mortality rate (28.08%) [13]. Severe AKI was found in 2.3% of 64,059 civilians with gunshot wounds and 0.9% required dialysis. It was associated with older age, male sex, history of diabetes or hyperten­sion, hypotension at presentation (systolic blood pressure<90mmHg), coagulopa­thy, lower Glasgow Coma Scale score, sepsis, hollow viscus injury, and higher injury severity score. The likelihood for patients with severe AKI to die was twice as high as that of patients without severe AKI, and it was even higher for those requiring dialysis as 28.4% of the latter group died [13, 14].
AKI might also develop in the context of isolated brain injury, as shown by a study recruiting 37,851 patients with isolated severe traumatic brain injuries, of whom 2.1% experienced severe (stage 3 or greater) AKI [15].
In developing countries, the risk of mortality for motor trafc accidents is far higher than in developed countries [16], and the polytrauma victims are younger, with a higher male predominance (92.3%) and a higher percentage (38.5%) of AKI [17].
44
https://t.me/medicina_free
Table 5.1 Kidney injury scale (from Moore etal. [18], with permission from Elsevier)
a
Type Injury description
Grade I Contusion Microscopic or gross hematoma, urologic studies normal 2
Hematoma Subcapsular, nonexpanding without parenchymal laceration 2
II Hematoma Nonexpanding perineal hematoma conned to renal
retroperitoneum
Laceration <1.0cm parenchymal depth of renal cortex without urinary
III Laceration >1.0cm parenchymal depth of renal cortex without collecting
IV Laceration Parenchymal laceration extending through the renal cortex,
Vascular Main renal artery or vein injury with contained hemorrhage 4
V Laceration Completed shattered kidney 5
Vascular Avulsion of renal hilum which devascularizes the kidney 5
a
Advance one grade for bilateral injuries up to grade III
extravasation
system rupture or urinary extravasation
medulla, and collecting system
5 Grading ofRenal Trauma
AIS­90
2
2
3
4
In summary, AKI is far more frequent than direct kidney trauma and its presence portends a more serious prognosis. It can be associated or not with gross kidney trauma. It is important to remember that AKI per se is not a surgical pathology and is better managed by nephrologists and acute medicine specialists in a high depen­dency or an Intensive Care Unit, and the management is based on the treatment of the primary insult and control of systemic disorders and also short-term hemodialy­sis if required until the acute episode is over, and the kidneys recover.
After clarifying this potential source of confusion, let us close the bracket and get back to the grading of the kidney trauma.
The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grading score of kidney trauma was introduced by Moore etal. in 1989 (Table5.1) [18].
This grading system has been validated by many studies: After a review of 54,148 entries containing the AIS-coded injuries in the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), Tinkoff et al. found that, in the 35,897 isolated abdominal solid organ injuries (including spleen, liver, and kidney), the outcome corresponded to the increase of injury grade [19]. And a monocentric retrospective review of 2467 patients with renal trauma showed a linear correlation between the AAST grades and the need for surgical exploration in general and for nephrectomy in particular [20] (Fig.5.1).
In a large proportion of patients with blunt as well as penetrating renal injury, the need for nephrectomy and the overall outcome can be reliably predicted by a combination of the AAST grade of renal injury, the overall injury severity score, and the requirement of blood transfusion [21]. However, concerns were raised about the lack of clarication of certain subtypes of injuries within grades IV and V [22], and proposals were made in 2011 concerning segmental vascular injuries and ureteral pelvic injuries [23]. In 2018, the AAST Patient Assessment Committee revised the kidney AAST grading system to include vascular thrombosis, segmen­tal renal artery or vein injury, and all collecting system injuries as grade IV
5 Grading ofRenal Trauma
https://t.me/medicina_free
45
injuries, and a devascularized kidney with active bleeding as grade V kidney injury [24]. In 2019, the American Society of Emergency Radiology adapted the description of CT ndings in accordance with the above updated AAST revision and highlighted important differences from the prior grading scheme [25] (Table5.2 and Fig.5.2).
Fig. 5.1 Correlation between treatment and AAST grade. (From Santucci RA, etal. [20], with permission from Wolters Kluwer Health)
Table 5.2
The last column emphasizes the new elements in the revised grading scheme (from Chien LC etal. [25], with permission from Springer Nature)
AAST grade
I
II
III
Description of CT features associated with each AAST OIS grade in the 2018 revision.
CT criteria in the revised grading system
– Isolated parenchymal contusion – Subcapsular hematoma
– Renal parenchymal laceration
1cm in depth without extension to the collecting system
– Perirenal hematoma contained by
Gerota fascia
– Renal parenchymal laceration
>1cm without extension to the collecting system
– Any low-grade injury with
associated vascular injury or active bleeding contained by Gerota fascia
New features in the revised grading system – Removes microscopic or macroscopic
hematuria without imaging abnormality
– Removes term nonexpanding from
subcapsular hematoma
– Removes term nonexpanding from
perirenal hematoma
– Adds vascular injury, dened as AVF or
pseudoaneurysm
– Includes active bleeding within Gerota
fascia
(continued)
46
https://t.me/medicina_free
Table 5.2 (continued)
AAST grade
IV
V
CT criteria in the revised grading system
– Parenchymal laceration extending to
the collecting system
– Renal pelvis laceration or complete
ureteropelvic laceration
– Segmental renal artery or vein
intimal injury/thrombus
– Active bleeding beyond Gerota
fascia into the retroperitoneum or peritoneum
– Segmental or complete renal
infarction due to vessel thrombosis in the absence of active bleeding
– Main renal artery or vein laceration
or avulsion from the renal hilum
– Complete organ devascularization
with active bleeding
– Shattered kidney
5 Grading ofRenal Trauma
New features in the revised grading system – Incorporates isolated renal collecting
system injury
– Includes active bleeding beyond Gerota
fascia
– Removes bleeding injuries to the main
renal artery and vein (laceration or avulsion of hilar vessels now included in grade V)
– Adds active bleeding in setting of
complete renal infarction in distinction from grade IV
Fig. 5.2
The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Organ Injury Scale (OIS) for the kidney (2018 revision): Normal anatomy: for illustrative purposes only, the renal vein has been removed. Grade I: (a) subcapsular hematoma and/or (b) parenchymal contusion without lac­eration. Grade II: (a) perirenal hematoma conned to Gerota fascia and (b) renal parenchymal laceration 1cm in depth without urinary extravasation. Grade III: (a) renal parenchymal lacera­tion >1cm in depth without urinary extravasation; (b) active bleeding arising from the kidney and contained by Gerota fascia; and (c) pseudoaneurysm (PSA)/arteriovenous stula (AVF) arising from the kidney and contained by Gerota fascia. Grade IV: (a) parenchymal laceration extending into the urinary collecting system with urinary extravasation; (b) renal pelvis laceration (illus­trated) and/or complete ureteropelvic disruption; (c) segmental renal vein or artery PSA/AVF; (d) active bleeding extending beyond Gerota fascia into the retroperitoneum or peritoneal cavity; and (e) segmental or complete kidney infarction due to vessel thrombosis without active bleeding (note that only segmental artery thrombosis and infarction are illustrated). Grade V: shattered kidney with loss of identiable parenchymal renal anatomy; devascularized kidney (a) with (b) active bleeding; main renal artery or vein laceration or avulsion of the hilum (main renal artery laceration illustrated in (b)). (© 2019 Mica Duran. From Chien LC et al. [25], with permission from Springer Nature)
475 Grading ofRenal Trauma
https://t.me/medicina_free
48
https://t.me/medicina_free
5 Grading ofRenal Trauma
Patients who are victims of gunshot kidney injury have higher grades than those assaulted by stabbing, and the latter group sustains higher injury grades than those who suffer blunt trauma [26]. The AAST grade has a statistically signicant correla­tion with the need for surgery and for the risk of nephrectomy; 86–91% of patients undergoing exploration for grade V ultimately have nephrectomy vs only 9% for grade IV [22, 25, 27] (Fig.5.3). These results are sufcient to emphasize the impor- tance of a careful distinction between grades IV and V before venturing into a surgi­cal exploration.
The World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) has adapted the AAST grad­ing to the patient’s hemodynamical condition and proposed four grades grouped into three categories: minor, moderate, and severe [28] (Table5.3).
A different grading system (the Chatelain Classication) has been used in the French medical literature since 1981 but is almost abandoned now. It comprised four grades only and was based on intravenous urography (IVU) ndings, hence its weakness. To date, the original AAST classication still holds the lion’s share among trauma doctors, clinicians, and researchers.
ab c
Fig. 5.3 AAST grade V injury in two separate patients. (a) Sagittal CECT of a patient with tran- sected kidney demonstrates complete devascularization of the interpolar region of the right kidney. (b) Intraoperative photograph of the same patient as (a) demonstrating transection of the kidney, with a small superior pole attached to the IVC (arrow), which was subsequently repaired. The inferior pole is in the lower-left corner (star). No distinct arterial supply to the inferior pole could be identied. Superior pole parenchyma was well-vascularized but was avulsed from the entire collecting system. Nephrectomy was performed. (c) Coronal CECT in a separate patient. (From Chien LC etal. [25], with permission from Springer Nature)
Table 5.3 WSES kidney trauma classication (from Coccolini, F. etal. [28]. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License)
WSES grade AAST
Minor WSES grade I I–II Stable Moderate WSES grade II III or segmental vascular injuries Stable Severe WSES grade III IV–V or any grade parenchymal lesion
WSES grade IV Any Unstable
Hemodynamic
Stable
with main vessel dissection/occlusion
References
https://t.me/medicina_free
49
References
1. Gebhard F, Huber-Lang M. Polytrauma—pathophysiology and management principles. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2008;393:825.
2. Pape HC, Lefering R, Butcher N, Peitzman A, Leenen L, Marzi I, Lichte P, Josten C, Bouillon B, Schmucker U, Stahel P, Giannoudis P, Balogh Z.The denition of polytrauma revisited: an international consensus process and proposal of the new ‘Berlin denition’. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;77(5):780–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000000453.
3. States J. The abbreviated and the comprehensive research injury scales. SAE Technical Paper 690810, 1969. https://doi.org/10.4271/690810.
4. Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). Overview. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. 2019 [cited 7 Aug 2019]. Available from: https://www.aaam.org/
abbreviated- injury- scale- ais/.
5. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. Lancet. 1974;304(7872):81–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140- 6736(74)91639- 0.
6. Jain S, Iverson LM.Glasgow Coma scale. 2021. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2022.
7. Driessen MLS, Sturms LM, van Zwet EW, Bloemers FW, Ten Duis HJ, Edwards MJR, den Hartog D, de Jongh MAC, Leenhouts PA, Poeze M, Schipper IB, Spanjersberg R, Wendt KW, de Wit RJ, van Zutphen SWAM, Leenen LPH.Evaluation of the Berlin polytrauma denition: a Dutch nationwide observational study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021;90(4):694–9. https://
doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000003071.
8. Baker SP, O’Neill B, Haddon W Jr, Long WB.The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma. 1974;14(3):187–96.
9. Bolorunduro OB, Villegas C, Oyetunji TA, Haut ER, Stevens KA, Chang DC, Cornwell EE 3rd, Efron DT, Haider AH.Validating the Injury Severity Score (ISS) in different populations: ISS predicts mortality better among Hispanics and females. J Surg Res. 2011;166(1):40–4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2010.04.012. Epub 2010 May 6.
10. KDIGO AKI Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2:1–138.
11. Kellum JA, Romagnani P, Ashuntantang G, etal. Acute kidney injury. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7:52. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572- 021- 00284- z.
12. Ertel W, Friedl H, Trentz O.Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) following multiple trauma: rationale and concept of therapeutic approach. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 1994;4(4):243–8.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s- 2008- 1066112.
13. Ahmed N, Mathew RO, Kuo Y, etal. Risk of in-hospital mortality in severe acute kidney injury after traumatic injuries: a national trauma quality program study. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2021;6:e000635. https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco- 2020- 000635.
14. Athavale AM, Fu CY, Bokhari F, Bajani F, Hart P. Incidence of, risk factors for, and mor­tality associated with severe acute kidney injury after gunshot wound. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(12):e1917254. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17254.
15. Luu D, Komisarow J, Mills BM, Vavilala MS, Laskowitz DT, Mathew J, James ML, Hernandez A, Sampson J, Fuller M, Ohnuma T, Raghunathan K, Privratsky J, Bartz R, Krishnamoorthy V. Association of severe acute kidney injury with mortality and healthcare utilization fol­lowing isolated traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care. 2021;35:434. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12028- 020- 01183- z.
16. Museru LM, Mcharo CNLMT. Road trafc accidents in Tanzania: a ten year epide­miological appraisal. East Cent African J Surg. 2002;7:23–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.004.
17. Muhamedhussein MS, Manji M, Nungu KS, Ruggajo P, Khalid K.Prevalence and risk factors of acute kidney injury in polytrauma patients at Muhimbili Orthopedic Institute, Tanzania. Afr J Emerg Med. 2021;11(1):74–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2020.08.004.
50
https://t.me/medicina_free
18. Moore EE, Shackford SR, Pachter HL, McAninch JW, Browner BD, Champion HR, Flint LM, Gennarelli TA, Malangoni MA, Ramenofsky ML, etal. Organ injury scaling: spleen, liver, and kidney. J Trauma. 1989;29(12):1664–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039- 6109(16)46589- 8.
19. Tinkoff G, Esposito TJ, Reed J, Kilgo P, Fildes J, Pasquale M, Meredith JW. American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale I: spleen, liver, and kidney, valida­tion based on the national trauma data bank. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(5):646–55. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.06.342.
20. Santucci RA, McAninch JW, Sar M, Mario LA, Service S, Segal MR. Validation of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma organ injury severity scale for the kidney. J Trauma. 2001;50(2):195–200. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373- 200102000- 00002.
21. Erlich T, Kitrey ND.Renal trauma: the current best practice. Ther Adv Urol. 2018;10:295–303.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287218785828.
22. Costa IA, Amend B, Stenzl A, Bedke J.Contemporary management of acute kidney trauma. J Acute Dis. 2016;5:29–36.
23. Buckley JC, McAninch JW. Revision of current American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Renal Injury grading system. J Trauma. 2011;70(1):35–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/
TA.0b013e318207ad5a.
24. Kozar RA, Crandall M, Shanmuganathan K, Zarzaur BL, Coburn M, Cribari C, Kaups K, Schuster K, Tominaga GT, AAST Patient Assessment Committee. Organ injury scaling 2018 update: spleen, liver, and kidney. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018;85(6):1119–22. https://doi.
org/10.1097/TA.0000000000002058. Erratum in: J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019;87(2):512.
25. Chien LC, Vakil M, Nguyen J, et al. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale 2018 update for computed tomography-based grading of renal trauma: a primer for the emergency radiologist. Emerg Radiol. 2020;27:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10140- 019- 01721- z.
26. Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG, Karakiewicz PI, Dhami G, Stage KH.Evidence-based validation of the predictive value of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Kidney Injury Scale. J Trauma. 2007;62(4):933–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0b013e318031ccf9.
27. Santucci RA, McAninch JM. Grade IV renal injuries: evaluation, treatment, and outcome. World J Surg. 2001;25:1565–72.
28. Coccolini F, Moore EE, Kluger Y, et al. Kidney and uro-trauma: WSES-AAST guidelines. World J Emerg Surg. 2019;14:54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017- 019- 0274- x.
5 Grading ofRenal Trauma
Symptoms, Signs, andDiagnostic Means
https://t.me/medicina_free
ofRenal Trauma
6.1 Presentation andPhysical Examination
Generally, the patient is brought to the hospital by relatives or by an ambulance from the accident (RTA, sports trauma, and fall) or the aggression scene, and history is readily provided by the patient himself if fully conscious, the rescuers, the rela­tives, or the bystanders. Usually, the mechanism of the injury is obvious. The rst step is to assess his consciousness and hemodynamic status. Vital signs must be taken immediately, and the patient kept under monitoring (BP, pulse, RR, and O2 saturation) and instructed on strict bed rest until denitely labeled as stable with minor trauma. Patients might present with anemia and hemodynamic instability (i.e., systolic blood pressure<90mmHg). Patients who sustained penetrating renal injury are more likely to present with hemodynamic instability than those with blunt trauma in a proportion of 14.2% vs. 8.36%, respectively [1].
The patient can also present with loin or ank pain with or without hematuria. The presence of hematuria is an important positive nding, but its absence does not exclude renal trauma, and its importance does not correlate with the grade of the trauma. The physical examination will show bruising, ecchymosis, swelling, and tenderness at the loin, ank, or abdominal region. In penetrating injuries, the wound caused by the stabbing instrument will be obvious, and the entry and possibly the exit site of the bullet in a gunshot injury should also be determined. Signs of perito­nitis might be observed if a hollow viscus has been perforated.
As renal trauma might present in the context of multiorgan injury, a general physical examination is of paramount importance to avoid missing injuries of other organs: in addition to the urgent consciousness and hemodynamical status assess­ment already mentioned above, the examination should rule out rib fracture or spine injury, hemoperitoneum (spleen or liver rupture), hemo- or pneumothorax (pleural or broncho-pulmonary injury), and peritonitis (injury of hollow abdominal viscera: colon, small bowel, stomach, etc.).
6
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. A. AL-Mamari, Urogenital Trauma: A Practical Guide,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6171-9_6
51