• Matthew K Simpson, Emanuele Lagazzi, Vahe S Panossian, Ikemsinachi C Nzenwa, Helen S Wei, Wardah Rafaqat, Anne H Hoekman, Michael P DeWane, George C Velmahos, and John O Hwabejire.
• Division of Trauma, Emergency Surgery & Surgical Critical Care, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 165 Cambridge St, Suite 810, 02114, Boston, MA, United States.
• Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2024 Oct 1; 50 (5): 217121802171-2180.

PurposeRenal angioembolization (RAE) is widely employed in low-grade renal injuries and associated with improved patient outcomes, while surgery remains the mainstay for managing high-grade injuries. We compared the outcomes following surgery and RAE in high-grade renal trauma (HGRT).MethodsWe used the ACS TQIP 2016-2020 to identify patients ≥ 16 years with HGRT who underwent RAE or surgery. Morbidity was the primary outcome, while mortality and lengths of stay were secondary outcomes. We accounted for clinically relevant characteristics using multilevel logistic regression analyses.ResultsWe included 591 patients, of whom 279 (47.2%) underwent RAE. After adjusting, there was no difference in morbidity, hospital LOS, or ICU LOS. The surgery cohort had increased odds of mortality (aOR 4.93; [95% CI] 1.53-15.82; p = 0.007) compared to RAE. In the penetrating injury subgroup, no associations between management and outcomes were observed. In the grade V injury subgroup, morbidity was significantly higher after surgery (aOR 4.64; [95% CI] 1.49-14.47; p = 0.008).ConclusionOverall, RAE did not significantly impact morbidity but was associated with improved mortality. RAE could safeguard renal function by augmenting the efficacy of concurrent non-operative interventions. Randomized studies are needed to further validate the utility of RAE in HGRT.© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.

25 keywords...

hide…