4.6 Article

Urotrauma Guideline 2020: AUA Guideline

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 205, 期 1, 页码 30-35

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001408

关键词

Urologic injuries; urotrauma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors reviewed urologic trauma literature to update guidelines for the evaluation and management of genitourinary injuries. The Panel updated six existing statements and added four new statements based on recent literature. These evidence-based updates provide further guidance on the treatment of urotrauma.
Purpose: The authors of this guideline reviewed the urologic trauma literature to guide clinicians in the appropriate methods of evaluation and management of genitourinary injuries. Materials and Methods: The Panel amended the Guideline in 2020 to reflect additional literature published through February 2020. When sufficient evidence existed, the Panel assigned the body of evidence a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, the Panel provided additional information as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (See table 1). Results: The Panel updated a total of six existing statements on renal, ureteral, bladder, urethra, and genital trauma. Additionally, four new statements were added based on literature released since the 2017 amendment. Statement 5b was added based on new evidence for treatment of hemodynamically unstable patients with renal trauma. Statement 20b was added based on new literature for percutaneous or open suprapubic tube placement following pelvic fracture urethral injury. Statements 30a and 30b were also added to provide guidance on ultrasonography for blunt scrotal injuries suggestive of testicular rupture and for performing surgical exploration with repair or orchiectomy for penetrating scrotal injuries respectively. Conclusions: These evidence-based updates to the AUA Guidelines further inform the treatment of urotrauma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据