PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To review the guidelines released in the last decade by several organisations for the optimal evaluation and management of genitourinary injuries (renal, ureteric, bladder, urethral and genital).
METHODS: This is a review of the genitourinary trauma guidelines from the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association (AUA), and renal trauma guidelines from the Société Internationale d\'Urologie (SIU).
RESULTS: Most recommendations are guided by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) organ injury severity system. Grade A evidence is rare in genitourinary trauma, and most recommendations are based on Grade B or C evidence. The findings of the most recent urological trauma guidelines are summarised. All guidelines recommend conservative management for low-grade injuries. The major difference is for haemodynamically stable patients who have high-grade renal trauma; the SIU guidelines recommend exploratory laparotomy, the EAU guidelines recommend renal exploration only if the injury is vascular, and the AUA guidelines recommend initial conservative management.
CONCLUSIONS: There is generally consensus among the three guidelines. Recommendations are based on observational or retrospective studies, as well as clinical principles and expert opinions. Multi-institutional collaborative research can improve the quality of evidence and direct more effective evaluation and management of urological trauma.
METHODS: This is a review of the genitourinary trauma guidelines from the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association (AUA), and renal trauma guidelines from the Société Internationale d\'Urologie (SIU).
RESULTS: Most recommendations are guided by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) organ injury severity system. Grade A evidence is rare in genitourinary trauma, and most recommendations are based on Grade B or C evidence. The findings of the most recent urological trauma guidelines are summarised. All guidelines recommend conservative management for low-grade injuries. The major difference is for haemodynamically stable patients who have high-grade renal trauma; the SIU guidelines recommend exploratory laparotomy, the EAU guidelines recommend renal exploration only if the injury is vascular, and the AUA guidelines recommend initial conservative management.
CONCLUSIONS: There is generally consensus among the three guidelines. Recommendations are based on observational or retrospective studies, as well as clinical principles and expert opinions. Multi-institutional collaborative research can improve the quality of evidence and direct more effective evaluation and management of urological trauma.
摘要：
目的：回顾一些组织在过去十年中发布的关于泌尿生殖系统损伤的最佳评估和管理的指南（肾，输尿管,膀胱,尿道和生殖器）。
方法：这是对欧洲泌尿外科协会（EAU）和美国泌尿外科协会（AUA）的泌尿生殖创伤指南的回顾，和肾脏创伤指南从法国国际社会（SIU）。
结果：大多数建议由美国创伤手术协会（AAST）器官损伤严重程度系统指导。A级证据在泌尿生殖系统创伤中很少见，大多数建议都是基于B级或C级证据。总结了最新的泌尿系统创伤指南的发现。所有指南都建议对低级伤害进行保守治疗。主要区别是血液动力学稳定的患者有高度肾损伤;SIU指南推荐剖腹探查术,EAU指南建议仅在损伤为血管的情况下进行肾脏探查，AUA指南建议最初保守管理。
结论：这三个指南之间存在普遍共识。建议基于观察性或回顾性研究，以及临床原则和专家意见。多机构合作研究可以提高证据质量，指导泌尿外科创伤更有效的评估和管理。
方法：这是对欧洲泌尿外科协会（EAU）和美国泌尿外科协会（AUA）的泌尿生殖创伤指南的回顾，和肾脏创伤指南从法国国际社会（SIU）。
结果：大多数建议由美国创伤手术协会（AAST）器官损伤严重程度系统指导。A级证据在泌尿生殖系统创伤中很少见，大多数建议都是基于B级或C级证据。总结了最新的泌尿系统创伤指南的发现。所有指南都建议对低级伤害进行保守治疗。主要区别是血液动力学稳定的患者有高度肾损伤;SIU指南推荐剖腹探查术,EAU指南建议仅在损伤为血管的情况下进行肾脏探查，AUA指南建议最初保守管理。
结论：这三个指南之间存在普遍共识。建议基于观察性或回顾性研究，以及临床原则和专家意见。多机构合作研究可以提高证据质量，指导泌尿外科创伤更有效的评估和管理。
