Patients with Severe Injuries Including Pelvic and Spinal Fractures who have Urogenital Injuries

Harris Clark^*
*Correspondence: Harris Clark, Department of Neuroscience, Kabul University, Kabul, Afghanistan, Email:

Introduction

In industrialized nations, injuries caused by trauma continue to be the leading cause of death for adults under the age of 45. Patients with poly trauma suffer from persistent injuries and poor long-term outcomes, which limit their ability to work and impose a significant financial burden. Approximately 5–10% of poly trauma patients suffer from genitourinary injuries (GUIs), with traumatic kidney injuries accounting for the majority. During the initial response to an emergency, it can be challenging to identify GUIs in severely injured patients. As a result, managing poly trauma patients presents a significant challenge due to delayed or even missed GUI diagnoses. There have been endeavours to anticipate GUIs with distinguishing markers, for example, macrohematuria. Due to the number of patients who do not have macrohematuria but still have urogenital injuries and its inability to show the severity or location of the injury in the genitourinary tract, macrohematuria has been shown to be unreliable as a sole marker.

Description

In industrialized nations, blunt abdominal trauma accounts for the majority of GUIs, whereas in developing nations, penetrating trauma, such as stab or gunshot wounds, accounts for the majority of injuries. In addition, pelvic girdle fractures or acute deceleration trauma, such as high-speed traffic accidents or falls from great heights, are frequently (up to 83%) associated with lower urinary tract injuries (LUTI). Albeit horrendous GUIs are not normally the reason for death at first, they can fundamentally influence the personal satisfaction and lead to high paces of bleakness and mortality in the recuperating system after polytrauma. As a result, identifying GUIs as soon as possible is critical to avoiding complications or simply delaying treatment.

When a polytrauma patient first presents to the trauma room, the mandatory computed tomography (CT) scan typically does not include explicit imaging of the urogenital organs, such as a urographic phase. In general, the symptoms of GUI are rather hazy, making them easy to overlook, particularly in patients who have more obvious and pressing injuries. On the other hand, the initial CT scan is much more likely to reveal pelvic fractures and spinal injuries. Injuries to this body part can indicate the presence of GUIs because of the close anatomical relationship between the pelvic girdle and the lower urinary tract. It is possible that a higher risk of GUI is linked to injuries to the thoracic or lumbar spine, but this has not yet been thoroughly evaluated. A number of authors have attempted to identify predictive factors for GUIs in poly traumatized patients because the difficulty of diagnosing GUIs in severely injured patients is well known. As far as anyone is concerned, no reasonable standards for the expectation of GUIs in seriously harmed patients with pelvic or potentially lumbar as well as thoracic spinal wounds have been recognized to date. As a result, the goal of this study is to identify factors that can be used to anticipate GUI in severely injured patients. In order to avoid poly trauma patients receiving incorrect treatment and a delayed diagnosis of GUI, another goal is to make decision-making in the trauma room easier. We will later present a novel scoring system that is simple to use in order to facilitate this decision-making process [1].

The timely diagnosis of GUIs is essential for managing polytrauma patients, but it is neither frequently provided nor a major focus of research. This study is, to our knowledge, one of the most extensive in this field. In total, urogenital injuries occurred in 11.4% of our patients, slightly higher than the 5–10% reported in the literature. On one hand, this could be because of the way that we incorporated all GUIs and didn't recognize extreme and light GUIs (as estimated by the AIS scores). However, as we only included patients with pelvic fractures and/or injuries to the thoracic or lumbar spine, our inclusion criteria may also have contributed to the high prevalence of urogenital injuries. However, we acknowledge that a higher overall percentage of GUIs in our study population could result from selection bias due to these inclusion criteria. Similar to what has been demonstrated in the literature, our study demonstrates that patients who suffer injuries to the pelvic girdle are more likely to suffer urogenital injuries. Injuries to the thoracic and/or lumbar spines, which have not previously been examined, did not appear to be associated with GUIs [2].

Although the thoracic and lumbar spines are anatomically close, unlike the urethra and pelvic ligaments and girdle, they are not directly ligamentous connected to the urogenital organs, particularly the kidney and the ureter. The majority of other studies have so far only looked at patients who had poly trauma as a whole. We genuinely think that restricting the patient companion down to patients with wounds in close physical vicinity to the genitourinary plot, will prompt more exact conclusion of GUI. Our findings confirm the significance of the severity of the pelvic ring injury in addition to the general correlation between pelvic fractures and GUI. The likelihood of sustaining a GUI, which is directly proportional to the severity of the AIS score-measured pelvic girdle fracture, demonstrates this. When the pelvic ring is completely unstable, as is the case with vertical shear and open book fractures, or when there is a concomitant major blood loss, AIS scores for pelvic fractures are high (AIS 4/5) This confirms previous research that pelvic fracture-related urogenital injury (PFUI) was mostly linked to widening of the symphysis and shear forces in fractures or dislocations of the sacroiliac joint that disrupted the anterior pelvic ring. However, even when the AIS score of the pelvic girdle injury is taken into account, the presence of a pelvic girdle injury alone is not very reliable for forecasting GUIs [3].

Eidelmann and colleagues attempted to predict bladder injuries solely based on total ISS and found that patients with an ISS greater than 34 were more likely to sustain bladder injuries. Patients with an ISS greater than 34 were significantly more likely to sustain GUI (P=0.032), proving that this cutoff was also feasible in our study. Although the ISS is a well-known scoring system that is easy to use, its flaws, like the awkward division of six body regions, have been widely discussed. Therefore, relying solely on the ISS to predict GUIs in severely injured patients does not seem reasonable. The presence of GUI is significantly predicted by each of the aforementioned factors. However, each does not have a significant clinical value for predicting GUI in severely injured patients on its own, as previously stated. However, by combining these elements, we were able to develop a novel scoring system that, with a very high probability, can predict GUI in poly trauma patients. This scoring system can be used in both the pre-hospital and emergency room settings and is a simple tool to use [4].

For instance, a male motorcyclist with a visible macrohematuria on the scene and a suspicion of a high-grade, unstable pelvic ring fracture should be transported to a trauma centre with urologic consultation available. Additionally, a prompt specialist urological examination would be beneficial for this patient in order to quickly diagnose the condition and avoid delaying treatment. Since low UPPS scores accurately predict the absence of urogenital injuries, we were pleased to discover that the proposed novel scoring system has a high negative predictive value. However, a low score does not necessarily rule out urogenital injuries; the individual expertise of the treating physician and accurate imaging are therefore essential. The novel scoring system still needs to be validated and larger study populations are required to do so. In addition, a prospective study in the emergency department ought to be carried out in the near future to ascertain the scoring system's practical utility [5].

Conclusion

We did not exclude these cases because we believe that this very small number of cases will not change statistics in a significant way, despite the fact that penetrating and blunt abdominal trauma necessitate significantly different treatment strategies. Additionally, it is important to take into account the limitations of our study, such as the fact that the data were gathered retrospectively, which increases the likelihood of inaccurate or incomplete data collection. Patients with incomplete data were excluded because of this potential limitation.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Ge, Laurence, Karan Arul and Addisu Mesfin."Spinal cord injury from spinal tumors: Prevalence, management and outcomes." World Neurosurg 122 (2019): e1551-e1556.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Lador, Ran, Gilad Regev, Khalil Salame and Morsi Khashan, et al. "Use of 3-dimensional printing technology in complex spine surgeries." World Neurosurg 133 (2020): e327-e341.

 Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Frost, Brody A., Sandra Camarero-Espinosa and E. Johan Foster. "Materials for the spine: Anatomy, problems and solutions." Materials 12 (2019): 253.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Grijalvo, Santiago, Manuel Nieto‐Díaz, Rodrigo M. Maza and Ramón Eritja, et al. "Alginate hydrogels as scaffolds and delivery systems to repair the damaged spinal cord." Biotechnol J 14 (2019): 1900275.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Bollen, Laurens, Sander PD Dijkstra, Ronald HMA Bartels and Alexander de Graeff, et al. "Clinical management of spinal metastases: The Dutch national guideline." Eur J Cancer 104 (2018): 81-90.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at