The role of "one-shot" intravenous pyelogram in evaluation of penetrating abdominal trauma.

The role of limited "one-shot" intravenous pyelogram (IVP) in patients sustaining proximity penetrating trauma is not well defined, although formal IVP remains the "gold standard" for evaluating possible urological injuries. This retrospective review evaluates the efficacy and usefulness of limited one-shot IVP in penetrating abdominal trauma patients who are suspected of having urological injuries. The charts of 40 patients with penetrating abdominal trauma who had one-shot IVP performed in the emergency room at presentation were reviewed. Of the total, 36 patients had gunshot wounds and only 4 patients had stab wounds. Mean Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index was 15.7, with 47.5 per cent of patients in shock. Only 2 out of 10 urological injuries were detected by one-shot IVP. The positive predictive value of limited one-shot IVP was only 20 per cent, with sensitivity 25 per cent and specificity 76.2 per cent. The results of the one-shot IVP did not influence the decisions for laparotomy in any of the 35 (87.5%) patients who underwent exploratory laparotomy. In the two patients with positive one-shot IVPs who had urological injuries, the decision to operate was again determined by the presence of other associated intra-abdominal injuries. Eighty per cent of patients with normal one-shot IVP findings had renal injuries not detected by one-shot IVP, and 20 per cent of patients with abnormal IVP findings had no intraoperative evidence of renal injury. The presence of gross hematuria appeared to correlate with the presence of significant urological injuries. We therefore conclude that limited one-shot IVP is of no significant value in assessing penetrating abdominal trauma patients who subsequently undergo exploratory laparotomy for other associated intra-abdominal injuries, and indeed, the delay imposed, before definitive operative intervention in potentially unstable patients, is unjustified.