학술논문
PROPOSED REVISION OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR SURGERY OF TRAUMA RENAL TRAUMA ORGAN INJURY SCALE: SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF THE MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL GENITOURINARY TRAUMA STUDY
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Matta, Rano; Keihani, Sorena; Hebert, Kevin; Horns, Joshua J.; Nirula, Raminder; McCrum, Marta; McCormick, Benjamin J.; Gross, Joel A.; Joyce, Ryan P.; Rogers, Douglas M.; Wang, Sherry S; Hagedorn, Judith C.; Selph, J. Patrick; Sensenig, Rachel L.; Moses, Rachel A.; Dodgion, Christopher M.; Gupta, Shubham; Mukherjee, Kaushik; Majercik, Sarah; Broghammer, Joshua A.; Schwartz, Ian; Elliott, Sean P.; Breyer, Benjamin N.; Baradaran, Nima; Zakaluzny, Scott; Erickson, Bradley A.; Miller, Brandi D.; Askari, Reza; Carrick, Matthew M.; Burks, Frank N.; Norwood, Scott; Myers, Jeremy B.
Source
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. Jan 29, 2024
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
2163-0755
Abstract
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