Cargando…

Minimally invasive management versus open surgery in the treatment of penetrating bladder injuries: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: While blunt extra-peritoneal bladder injury is typically treated non-operatively or with minimally invasive management, the treatment for penetrating bladder injury is generally open surgery. We identify a group of patients with penetrating bladder injury who were treated with minimally...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Culhane, John, Syed, Johar Raza, Siddiqui, Sameer
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8477543/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34583674
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-021-00900-w
_version_ 1784575865559973888
author Culhane, John
Syed, Johar Raza
Siddiqui, Sameer
author_facet Culhane, John
Syed, Johar Raza
Siddiqui, Sameer
author_sort Culhane, John
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: While blunt extra-peritoneal bladder injury is typically treated non-operatively or with minimally invasive management, the treatment for penetrating bladder injury is generally open surgery. We identify a group of patients with penetrating bladder injury who were treated with minimally invasive management and compare the results with those who underwent traditional open surgical treatment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzes penetrating bladder injuries from a single trauma center from 2012 through 2019, and from the National Trauma Data Bank for 2016 and 2017. Mortality, complications, and length of stay were compared for minimally invasive management versus open surgery. We used Chi square to test significance for categorical variables, Mann–Whitney U test for ordinal variables, and T-test for continuous variables. Multivariate analysis was performed with multiple logistic, ordinal, and linear regression. RESULTS: Local: 117 (0.63%) had a bladder injury; 30 (25.6%) were penetrating. 6 (20.0%) were successfully treated with minimally invasive management with no complication versus 24 complications in 11 patients (45.8%) for open surgery (p = 0.047). Open surgical management was not a significant independent predictor of mortality or hospital length of stay. National Trauma Data Bank: 5330 (0.27%) had a bladder injury; 963 (19.5%) were penetrating. 97 (10.1%) were treated with minimally invasive management. The minimally invasive management group had 12 complications in 5 patients (4.9%) versus 280 complications in 169 patients (19.7%) for open surgery (p =  < 0.001). Open surgery was a significant independent predictor of complications (OR 1.57, p = 0.003) and longer hospital length of stay (B = 5.31, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most penetrating bladder injury requires open surgery, however a small proportion can safely be managed with minimally invasive management. Minimally invasive management is associated with lower total complications and shorter hospital length of stay in select patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8477543
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84775432021-09-29 Minimally invasive management versus open surgery in the treatment of penetrating bladder injuries: a retrospective cohort study Culhane, John Syed, Johar Raza Siddiqui, Sameer BMC Urol Research BACKGROUND: While blunt extra-peritoneal bladder injury is typically treated non-operatively or with minimally invasive management, the treatment for penetrating bladder injury is generally open surgery. We identify a group of patients with penetrating bladder injury who were treated with minimally invasive management and compare the results with those who underwent traditional open surgical treatment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzes penetrating bladder injuries from a single trauma center from 2012 through 2019, and from the National Trauma Data Bank for 2016 and 2017. Mortality, complications, and length of stay were compared for minimally invasive management versus open surgery. We used Chi square to test significance for categorical variables, Mann–Whitney U test for ordinal variables, and T-test for continuous variables. Multivariate analysis was performed with multiple logistic, ordinal, and linear regression. RESULTS: Local: 117 (0.63%) had a bladder injury; 30 (25.6%) were penetrating. 6 (20.0%) were successfully treated with minimally invasive management with no complication versus 24 complications in 11 patients (45.8%) for open surgery (p = 0.047). Open surgical management was not a significant independent predictor of mortality or hospital length of stay. National Trauma Data Bank: 5330 (0.27%) had a bladder injury; 963 (19.5%) were penetrating. 97 (10.1%) were treated with minimally invasive management. The minimally invasive management group had 12 complications in 5 patients (4.9%) versus 280 complications in 169 patients (19.7%) for open surgery (p =  < 0.001). Open surgery was a significant independent predictor of complications (OR 1.57, p = 0.003) and longer hospital length of stay (B = 5.31, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most penetrating bladder injury requires open surgery, however a small proportion can safely be managed with minimally invasive management. Minimally invasive management is associated with lower total complications and shorter hospital length of stay in select patients. BioMed Central 2021-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8477543/ /pubmed/34583674 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-021-00900-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Culhane, John
Syed, Johar Raza
Siddiqui, Sameer
Minimally invasive management versus open surgery in the treatment of penetrating bladder injuries: a retrospective cohort study
title Minimally invasive management versus open surgery in the treatment of penetrating bladder injuries: a retrospective cohort study
title_full Minimally invasive management versus open surgery in the treatment of penetrating bladder injuries: a retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr Minimally invasive management versus open surgery in the treatment of penetrating bladder injuries: a retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Minimally invasive management versus open surgery in the treatment of penetrating bladder injuries: a retrospective cohort study
title_short Minimally invasive management versus open surgery in the treatment of penetrating bladder injuries: a retrospective cohort study
title_sort minimally invasive management versus open surgery in the treatment of penetrating bladder injuries: a retrospective cohort study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8477543/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34583674
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-021-00900-w
work_keys_str_mv AT culhanejohn minimallyinvasivemanagementversusopensurgeryinthetreatmentofpenetratingbladderinjuriesaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT syedjoharraza minimallyinvasivemanagementversusopensurgeryinthetreatmentofpenetratingbladderinjuriesaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT siddiquisameer minimallyinvasivemanagementversusopensurgeryinthetreatmentofpenetratingbladderinjuriesaretrospectivecohortstudy