• J D McAndrew and J N Corriere.
• Division of Urology, University of Texas Medical School at Houston.
• Br J Urol. 1994 Apr 1;73(4):352-4.

ObjectiveTo review the records of patients with suspected urinary tract trauma to determine whether eliminating imaging studies would have missed any significant injuries.Patients And MethodsThe records of 1103 consecutive patients who underwent radiographic evaluation of the urinary tract because of suspected renal trauma were evaluated retrospectively. A comprehensive review was made of the group of patients who were normotensive and had only microscopic haematuria.ResultsAbnormal intravenous pyelograms (IVP) were found in 10% of patients with normotension and microscopic haematuria. In patients with injuries due to penetrating trauma, five of 16 with an abnormal IVP required operative intervention, while in patients with injuries due to blunt trauma, only one of 60 had a significant renal injury. None of the 605 patients with a blunt injury, microscopic haematuria, no history of hypotension, and no significant associated injuries required operative intervention solely for the renal injury.ConclusionRadiographic evaluation of the urinary tract is recommended for all patients with penetrating trauma and any degree of haematuria, but only for patients with blunt trauma if associated with gross haematuria, microscopic haematuria and hypotension, or microscopic haematuria and significant associated injuries.

22 keywords...

hide…