Urogenital trauma: imaging upper GU trauma

Abstract 

Objectives: This article will define the current controversies and concepts in the classification, clinical presentation, imaging approaches and management of upper urinary tract trauma. Materials and methods, results: This review will include the experience of the authors in the field of renal trauma over a 32-year period. Current thinking accepts the view that significant renal trauma is generally present when there is gross hematuria, signs of shock, or other clinical signs of severe injury. In most patients, suspected renal injury will be evaluated as a part of the overall assassment of the patient for suspected intraperitoneal injury. The authors will stress some exceptions to the rule. Conclusions: Most trauma experts now advocate conservative management, unless the patient is unstable or a renal vascular thrombosis or avulsion is suspected. Similarly, penetrating trauma to the kidney in and of itself no longer requires mandatory surgery. In the United States, computed tomography (CT), especially spiral CT, is considered the best diagnostic study, if available. Intravenous pyelography (IVP) is adequate if this is the only imaging modality available and if no concomitant injuries to the abdominal structure are suspected. Ultrasound, although strongly advocated in some countries, can lead to some significant false negatives. The diagnosis and management of unusual problems such as the traumatic AV fistula, the patient with an absent kidney or injury to the congenitally abnormal kidney, the serendipitous renal tumor in a patient with trauma, or serious bleeding after an apparent minor injury (i.e., spontaneous hemorrhage) are also reviewed in this article.

Keywords:  CT–kidney injuries–kidney, Radiography–renal angiography–renal arteries injury, Computed tomography (CT), Helical–kidney