Should the emergency IVP be used more selectively in blunt renal trauma?
A retrospective study was performed to determine if the emergency intravenous pyelogram (IVP) is being overused in the evaluation of blunt renal trauma. Medical records of 105 blunt renal trauma patients undergoing IVPs for suspected blunt renal trauma were analyzed. Eighty-eight patients (83.8%) had normal IVPs, and 17 patients (16.2%) had abnormal IVPs. Three of the 105 patients (2.9%) required urologic surgical intervention. The medical records of these patients were examined in detail because it was believed that this patient population needed to be identified by emergency IVP. All three patients requiring urologic surgery had gross hematuria. All three patients had one or more associated injuries. Two of the three patients had flank tenderness and/or flank mass. The third patient was obtunded. From this study and information from the literature an algorithm has been constructed as a guideline for a prospective study. Following this guideline no patients in the study requiring urologic surgical intervention would have been missed. Of patients requiring an emergency IVP, 7.3% would have required urologic surgery. This would have resulted in a savings of $10,432 at our institution.
D004630:Emergencies; D006417:Hematuria / Q000503:physiopathology; D006801:Humans; D007668:Kidney / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000293:injuries*; D008499:Medical Records; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D014567:Urography / Q000191:economics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D014949:Wounds, Nonpenetrating / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000503:physiopathology