Search

(Objective) We retrospectively investigated the applicability of the Japanese Association for the Surgery of Trauma (JAST) classification version 2008 for renal injuries as predictive factors of the initial treatment for 207 blunt renal injury cases. (Materials and methods) We reviewed 207 patients between 1982 and 2013 who were admitted to our institution with blunt renal trauma. Patients were classified as conservative management group, immediate transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) group, and immediate nephrectomy group by initial treatment. We retrospectively assessed several parameters including JAST criteria version 2008 type of renal injury (type), severity of hematoma (H factor) and extravasation of urine (U factor), the shock on arrival, associated abdominal injuries, serum hemoglobin levels, and macrohematuria as predicting factors of initial treatment of blunt renal trauma. (Result) TypeIII and PV injuries, H2 factor and associated non-renal abdominal injuries were predictive factors of immediate nephrectomy (p=0.001, p=0.000, p=0.003). TypeIII and PV injuries and H2 factor were predictive factors of immediate TAE. Both of H2 and U2 factors were significant predictors of immediate nephrectomy in patients with typeIII injury. H factor was a significantly predictive factor of immediate TAE in patients with typeI/II injuries (p=0.040). The rate of immediate TAE has been increasing but the rate of partial nephrectomy except for nephrectomy has been decreasing since the year 2007 when TAE was immediately available in our hospital. (Conclusion) The type category and severity of hematoma of JAST classification version 2008 would be predictive factors of initial management of blunt renal injuries. Patients with typeIII injuries and both of H2 and U2 factors, can be adapted to immediate nephrectomy. Patients with typeI/II and H2 factors can be adapted to immediate TAE.

Purpose: We evaluated usefulness of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) for deep renal injury, and investigated whether there is any difference in outcomes for transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) performed for deep renal injury in a large-sized hospital (university hospital) in comparison with a middle-sized hospital (local hospital)., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 42 patients with renal injury who were transported to the critical care center of Nippon Medical School (NMS) Hospital in Tokyo from April 2001 to April 2011 and 33 patients of renal injury transported to the critical care center of Ohtawara Red Cross (ORC) Hospital in Tochigi prefecture from April 2001 to April 2009. Therefore, a total of 75 patients, which is the sum of the patients presenting to both the hospitals for renal injury were reevaluated according to the guidelines developed by the Japanese Association for the Surgery of Trauma (JAST) and published in 2008., Results: Forty-two patients in NMS hospital included 6 women and 36 men who were 16 to 88 years old (mean 41.6), and they were divided into Type I (16), Type II (11), and Type III (15) and were treated with bedrest (30), TAE (7), or laparotomy (5). Five patients died, but no one succumbed solely due to the renal injury. On the other hand, 33 Patients in ORC Hospital included 8 women and 25 men who were 16 to 87 years old (mean 46.6). They were divided into Type I (9). Type II (12), and Type III (12) and were treated with bedrest (24) or TAE (9). Eight patients died, but no one succumbed solely due to the renal injury. Sixteen patients were treated successfully with TAE in the 2 hospitals, and 15 of these 16 patients were divided into type III renal injury. Therefore, we believe that nephrectomy should be avoided in such patients because of the benefits offered by TAE., Conclusion: TAE was found to be useful for the treatment of type III renal injury in both institutions, irrespective of the size of a hospital.

Objective: To evaluate the clinical usefulness of the classification for renal injury, proposed by Japanese Association for the Surgery of Trauma (JAST)., Method: JAST classification for renal injuries consists of categories as: Type I (subcapsular injury); Type II (superficial injury); type III (deep injury); type IV (pedicle injury). Type III injuries are subclassified into: IIIa (deep laceration); IIIb (transection); IIIc (fragmentation). Type IV are subclassified as: IVa (M), IVa (S) (the occlusion of main or segmental renal artery); IVb (renal vessels laceration). Each of the degrees of severity in hemorrhage (H factor) and extravasation of urine (U factor) should be appended as: H0, U0 (not recognized); H1, U1 (remaining within perinephric space); H2, U2 (extending through Gerota's fascia); H3, U3 (extending to contralateral side). We examined the initial management and overall outcome of blunt renal injuries recorded at our institute. All patients were classified according to the JAST criteria. Statistical analyses were applied to find the correlations between type and H factor, and between type and U factor. We also determined which parameter (type, H or U) is the most significant factor responsible for the outcome of treatment in the injured kidney., Result: One hundred and fifteen consecutive cases of blunt renal injuries from 1982 to 1999 were investigated. Significant correlations were observed between type (I-IIIc) and H factor, and also between type (IIIa-IIIc) and U factor. Twenty-nine patients (25%) underwent immediate surgical exploration; 1 (2%) in type I or II or IVa (S), 5 (18%) in IIIa, 4 (50%) in IIIb, 7 (100%) in IIIc and 12 (100%) in IVa (M) or IVb. Among the 86 conservatively-managed patients, TAE or surgical intervention was required later in six patients. Nineteen (17%) patients were nephrectomized. The renal loss rates were 0% in type I or II or IVa (S), 7% in IIIa, 25% in IIIb, 57% in IIIc and 92% in IVa (M) or IVb, respectively. The differences of severities of the type and the H factor are statistically significant between the groups of injured kidney preserved and lost. Logistic regression analysis suggested that the type was an independent factor predicting outcomes of injured kidneys., Conclusion: It seemed that the type category is most useful when managing patients with renal injuries and also evaluating outcomes of them.

The cartilage response to injury differs from the classic wound healing because of two important features of the cartilage structure; lack of vascular system and rich matrix preventing chondrocyte from migration to the injury site. Three distinct types of cartilage injuries can be identified based on the depth of injury and the repair response: microdamage, chondral injury, and osteochondral injury. There have been numerous attempts to repair cartilage injury, however their results have reinforced that articular cartilage has limited potential to repair itself. However, current research is helping to clarify the mechanism of cartilage injury and repair based on its gene expression. Biology, gene therapy, and tissue engineering may provide a breakthrough to treat cartilage injury.