Kronstedt S, Wahlstedt E, Blacker M, Saffati G, Hinojosa-Gonzalez DE, Wilbert H, Fetherston T, Friedman J, Mucher ZR. Urologic Trauma Management for Military Providers.
Mil Med 2024:usae341. [PMID:
39028177 DOI:
10.1093/milmed/usae341]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2024] [Revised: 05/09/2024] [Accepted: 06/24/2024] [Indexed: 07/20/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Genitourinary (GU) trauma resulting from combat and the treatment of these injuries is an inadequately explored subject. While historically accounting for 2 to 5% of combat-related injuries, GU-related injuries escalated considerably during U.S. involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan due to improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Advanced body armor increased survivability while altering injury patterns, with a shift toward bladder and external genitalia injuries. Forward-deployed surgeons and military medics manage treatment, with Role 2 facilities addressing damage control resuscitation and surgery, including GU-specific procedures. The review aims to provide an overview of GU trauma and enhance medical readiness for battlefield scenarios.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This review examined urologic trauma management in combat, searching PubMed, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Web of Science databases with search terms "wounds" OR "injuries" OR "hemorrhage" AND "trauma" AND "penile" OR "genital" AND "combat." Records were then screened for inclusion of combat-related urologic trauma in conflicts after 2001 and which were English-based publications. No limits based on year of publication, study design, or additional patient-specific demographics were implemented in this review.
RESULTS
Ultimately, 33 articles that met the inclusion criteria were included. Included texts were narrowed to focus on the management of renal injuries, ureteral trauma, bladder injuries, penile amputations, urethral injuries, testicular trauma, Central nervous system (CNS) injuries, and female GU injuries.
CONCLUSIONS
In modern conflicts, treatment of GU trauma at the point of injury should be secondary to Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) care in addition to competing non-medical priorities. This review highlights the increasing severity of GU trauma due to explosive use, especially dismounted IEDs. Concealed morbidity and fertility issues underscore the importance of protection measures. Military medics play a crucial role in evaluating and managing GU injuries. Adherence to tactical guidelines and trained personnel is vital for effective management, and GU trauma's integration into broader polytrauma care is essential. Adequate preparation should address challenges for deploying health care providers, prioritizing lifesaving and quality-of-life care for casualties affected by GU injuries.
Collapse