Skip to main content

Renal Trauma

Renal injuries are the most common genitourinary (GU) injuries, historically reported in 1.2–3.3% of trauma patients across data sets; in U.S. series, 82–95% resulted from blunt mechanisms.[1] Most are low-grade injuries managed nonoperatively. High-grade renal injuries (AAST grades IV–V) carry the greatest risk of life-threatening hemorrhage and of long-term complications including renovascular hypertension and chronic kidney disease.[2]

Epidemiology and Mechanism​

Renal trauma occurs most often after motor vehicle collisions, falls from height, and direct blows to the flank. In a 201-patient renal gunshot series, associated organ injury occurred in 194 (96.5%), most often involving the liver.[3] In a 93-patient penetrating renal-trauma series, right-sided injuries most often involved the liver, small bowel and vertebra; left-sided injuries most often involved the stomach, colon and spleen.[26] Pediatric patients are disproportionately affected due to underdeveloped cartilaginous ribs and relatively larger kidney-to-body ratio, with renal injuries commonly following pedestrian–motor vehicle crashes and recreational vehicle accidents.[1]

Indications for Imaging​

Plain radiography and ultrasound are not recommended as primary diagnostic tools for suspected renal injury. The ACS guideline calls contrast-enhanced abdominal/pelvic CT the gold standard for hemodynamically stable or stabilized patients.[2][4]

At presentation, assess hemodynamic stability, hematuria, hematocrit, creatinine and prior renal surgery or known solitary kidney or UPJ obstruction; major UPJ or pedicle injury may occur without hematuria.[14] Obtain CT imaging for suspected renal injury when any of the following are present:[2][4]

  • Gross hematuria (any mechanism)
  • In stable or stabilized blunt-trauma patients, microhematuria with an episode of hypotension (AUA threshold: systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg), in the absence of indications for emergent laparotomy[4]
  • Penetrating injury to the abdomen, flank or lower chest
  • Significant mechanism: fall from height, rapid deceleration, direct flank blow
  • Clinical findings of renal trauma: flank ecchymosis, lower rib fractures on chest radiograph

Flank bulging with ecchymosis (Grey-Turner's sign) is described as a classic finding of retroperitoneal hemorrhage. Rib fractures at ribs 11–12 raise concern for renal laceration; groin ecchymosis is a late sign of pelvic hematoma.

Key point. Microhematuria without hypotension in a patient with no other high-risk features does not mandate renal imaging. This selective approach reduces unnecessary CT radiation exposure.

CT Imaging Protocol​

PhaseTiming After ContrastClinical Role
Portal venous phase~70 secondsEssential for parenchymal injury and active bleeding detection[5]
Arterial phase~20–40 secondsACR describes arterial-phase use as protocol-dependent; EAU describes three-phase renal CT as ideal. The arterial phase helps assess vascular injury, including pseudoaneurysm (PSA) and arteriovenous fistula (AVF)[5][14]
Delayed (excretory) phase3–20 min (optimal ~10 min)Required to detect collecting system injury and urinary extravasation

ACS selects delayed-phase imaging when renal injury is demonstrated on portal venous images, the mechanism raises concern for renal or ureteral injury, or unexpected perirenal or periureteral fluid is present.[2] AUA calls for immediate and delayed contrast-enhanced CT images whenever renal injury is suspected .[4] When the patient must leave the scanner before review, delayed images may be acquired up to approximately 60 minutes after the initial contrast injection, and the ACS guideline notes that CT without further contrast can show extravasation from an earlier injection.[2]

AAST Organ Injury Scale — 2025 Update and Historical 2018 Table​

AAST published a revised renal scale in 2025. It uses laceration length and hematoma rim distance; partial infarction and collecting-system injury without active bleeding are grade III, and active renal bleeding is grade IV unless grade V criteria are met.[13] Use the official current scale for contemporary grading.[6][13] The table and diagram below describe 2018 criteria.[6][13]

GradeDescription
ISubcapsular hematoma without parenchymal laceration; parenchymal contusion
IIPerirenal hematoma confined to Gerota's fascia; parenchymal laceration ≤1 cm depth, no urinary extravasation
IIIParenchymal laceration >1 cm depth without collecting-system rupture or urinary extravasation; active bleeding contained by Gerota's fascia; PSA or AVF arising from the kidney and contained by Gerota's fascia
IVParenchymal laceration into the collecting system with urinary extravasation; renal pelvis laceration or complete ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) disruption; segmental renal artery or vein injury; active bleeding extending beyond Gerota's fascia; segmental or complete kidney infarction due to vessel thrombosis without active bleeding
VShattered kidney with loss of identifiable anatomy; main renal artery or vein laceration or hilar avulsion; devascularized kidney with active bleeding

AAST renal injury patternsOriginal schematic · v2026-09-11 · Clinical review pending

Five panels illustrate increasing renal injury severity, from hematoma/contusion to deep laceration, collecting-system involvement and devascularized or shattered injury. Representative 2018 patterns only. The complete scale includes vascular and bleeding criteria that cannot be assigned from these drawings alone. (Original WARWIKI schematic; see the figure source record and review limits.)

Grade IV Substratification. Among 250 grade IV injuries under the 2018 scale in a seven-center cohort, the 121 isolated segmental infarctions had a 7% bleeding-intervention rate versus 21% for the other grade IV injuries; the 2025 scale classifies partial kidney infarction as grade III.[7][13] For isolated segmental infarction without active bleeding, revascularization is generally not warranted.[2][7]

Nonoperative Management (NOM)​

Eligibility Criteria​

AUA recommends noninvasive management for hemodynamically stable renal injury (Statement 4; Standard, Grade B). Patients with blunt or penetrating injuries across grades I–V are candidates when:[2][4]

  • Hemodynamics are normal on presentation or after initial resuscitation
  • No independent indication for operative exploration exists (peritonitis, bowel injury, etc.)

Persistent renal hemorrhagic shock requires intervention. For hemodynamically unstable patients with no or only transient response to resuscitation, AUA requires immediate intervention (Statement 5a; Standard, Grade B).[4] For an unstable patient with a deep or complex renal laceration (AAST grades III–V), a perirenal hematoma >4 cm or vascular contrast extravasation warrants immediate embolization or surgery (Statement 5b; Recommendation, Grade C).[4] Hemodynamic stability alone is insufficient for observation when an associated injury requires exploration or renal pelvis/UPJ disruption requires drainage or repair.[2][4]

Liberal opening of Gerota's fascia during exploratory laparotomy results in a high rate of nephrectomy, and the ACS guideline favors NOM, with angioembolization when available, even for high-grade injuries.[2] In the MiGUTS grade V series, 15 of 25 image-confirmed patients (60%) were managed without nephrectomy.[8]

NOM by Injury Grade​

Injury patternManagement considerations
Low-grade, uncomplicatedObservation is usually sufficient when stable
High-grade with viable parenchymaClose monitoring; embolization or drainage when indicated
Collecting-system leak / complete UPJ avulsionStable, asymptomatic collecting-system leaks may initially be observed; complete UPJ avulsion warrants prompt urologic intervention.[2][14]
Active hilar bleeding or failed hemorrhage controlOperative control, potentially nephrectomy

NOM success varies with selection and definition; angioembolization outcomes describe treated patients within each injury grade.[2][4]

NOM Principles​

NOM requires a clinical environment capable of serial hemodynamic and laboratory monitoring. Elements include:[2]

  • Close hemodynamic monitoring; bed rest and ICU admission may be used in selected adults according to injury severity, associated injuries and monitoring capacity
  • Serial hematocrit measurement
  • Availability of urology and interventional radiology consultation
  • Observation period: no standardized duration is recommended; 48–72 hours or more may be appropriate for higher-grade injuries, especially when repeat imaging shows no need for intervention
  • Injury to the renal pelvis or proximal ureter initially managed with NOM but may require expeditious drainage via ureteral stenting or percutaneous nephrostomy within the same admission

Angioembolization (Renal Artery Angiography with Embolization, RAE)​

Indications​

EAU 2026 strongly recommends selective RAE for active renal bleeding when no other immediate operative indication exists.[14] In stable patients or resuscitation responders, the following findings inform RAE selection alongside bleeding trajectory, injury anatomy and observation capacity; EAST 2023 could not favor RAE over observation for stable adults with ongoing renal bleeding.[2][22]

  • Active arterial contrast extravasation on CT (arterial or portal venous phase)
  • Renal PSA
  • Renal AVF
  • Persistent gross hematuria
  • Large or expanding perirenal hematoma (in the MiGUTS high-grade renal trauma derivation, each additional centimeter of hematoma rim distance was associated with 54% higher adjusted odds of a bleeding-control intervention; the ACS guideline cites an external validation reporting 66% higher odds per centimeter and hematoma rim distance >3.5 cm as a risk marker)[9][2]

Technical Considerations​

  • Sub-selective embolization is preferred over main renal artery embolization to preserve renal parenchyma and function
  • In a National Trauma Data Bank cohort (266 AE and 215 surgical repairs, 2013–2018), AE was successful in 94.2% of grade IV and 85.3% of grade V injuries, versus 82.1% and 56% for surgical repair; success meant no subsequent nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, repair or AE, and the comparison is observational.[10] Reassess ongoing bleeding for repeat AE or surgery. The ACS guideline discusses failure after embolization; in one selected blunt-injury series, 6 of 22 embolizations (27.2%) required subsequent surgery, while 35 of 36 selected repeat embolizations (97%) in a separate national registry were durable during the index hospitalization.[2][23][24]
  • Grade V injuries with complete hilar avulsion most likely require emergent surgical exploration regardless of RAE availability
  • Grade V shattered kidney without hilar avulsion can be managed conservatively with RAE as needed
  • Hybrid OR suites (combined IR/surgical capability) allow concurrent angioembolization and open exploration in refractory shock

The MiGUTS nomogram estimates the probability of any bleeding-control intervention after high-grade renal trauma.[9] In a 129-patient cohort with predominantly penetrating injuries, external validation found an AUC of 0.80 and a positive predictive value of 0.21.[21]

Operative Management​

For the unstable patient (perirenal packing, temporary vascular control, endovascular bridges and nephrectomy without a salvage attempt), see Damage Control in Genitourinary Trauma.

Retroperitoneal Zonal Anatomy​

A hematoma found on CT or at laparotomy is triaged by its retroperitoneal zone.[15]

ZoneLocationUsual sourceExploration
Zone 1Central-medialGreat vessels, duodenum, pancreasGenerally explored regardless of expansion
Zone 2Lateral (perinephric)Kidney, then colonPer the renal-injury criteria below
Zone 3PelvicUsually pelvic fractureOften managed with pelvic stabilization and resuscitation; angioembolization for persistent bleeding or instability

Zone 1 and Zone 3 hematomas typically fall to vascular surgery or orthopedics rather than urology; Zone 2 is the renal surgeon's usual concern.

Indications for Exploration​

Absolute:

  • Hemodynamic instability unresponsive to resuscitation with active renal hemorrhage
  • Grade V hilar avulsion
  • Expanding, pulsatile, or ruptured Zone II retroperitoneal hematoma

Blunt trauma: A non-expanding Zone II retroperitoneal hematoma found at laparotomy for other injuries should not be explored; it is associated with significantly higher nephrectomy rates. Obtain postoperative CT for characterization.[2]

Penetrating trauma: Zone II hematomas after penetrating injury may be explored due to increased likelihood of clinically significant renal pelvis, ureteral, or vascular injury.

Preoperative Preparation​

  • Midline incision from xyphoid to pubis
  • Balanced resuscitation (permissive hypotension, limited crystalloid, blood product transfusion)
  • Activate massive transfusion protocol when appropriate; send blood for type and crossmatch and administer preoperative antibiotics.[2]
  • Before exploring the injured kidney: palpate the contralateral kidney. If absent or abnormal (polycystic, atrophic) on palpation and contralateral function is unknown because preliminary CT was unavailable, a single-shot IV pyelogram (AUA: 2 mL/kg IV contrast with a single image at 10–15 minutes) may demonstrate contralateral excretion; poor opacification in shock is inconclusive and must not delay lifesaving control[4]

Renal Exposure Approaches​

Medial approach: Opens retroperitoneum in the midline to isolate renal artery and vein before entering Gerota's fascia. Provides definitive vascular control but may be difficult with large central hematomas distorting hilar anatomy. When a large retroperitoneal hematoma obscures direct visualization or palpation of the aorta, the inferior mesenteric vein in the left-colon mesentery is a useful landmark: incise just medial to it, cephalad to the inferior mesenteric artery, toward the ligament of Treitz. The left renal vein crossing anterior to the aorta is the first major vessel encountered and the key hilar landmark, with the left renal artery usually just posterior and slightly superior to it; right hilar access is through the same incision, elevating the left renal vein and dissecting in the intra-aortocaval space to find the right renal artery, with the right renal vein lying lateral to the vena cava at a similar level. Leave the renal vessels unclamped unless major bleeding requires control, to limit warm ischemia.[17]

Lateral approach: Mobilizes the colon and opens the hematoma directly; kidney is rapidly mobilized with manual hilar compression available. Allows rapid inspection of parenchyma, collecting system, and vasculature.

Operative Repair by Grade​

GradeOperative Approach
I–IIICautery, topical hemostatic agents, absorbable suture ligation of individual parenchymal vessels; partial nephrectomy if parenchyma cannot be approximated
IV (stable)Parenchymal bleeding controlled as above; collecting system closed with running absorbable suture (watertight); Gerota's fascia or omental flap for buttress; closed-suction drain left in place. When the remaining capsule cannot cover a large polar defect, absorbable polyglactin mesh fitted to the defect and secured with interrupted sutures is a described alternative, with omentum mobilized over the repair when available.[18] Two atlas sources instead favor a passive (Penrose) drain through a separate incision for a collecting-system repair, citing concern that suction could promote a urinary fistula; this is author teaching without comparative outcome data.[17][18]
Hemodynamically unstable, or grade V found at explorationACS advises nephrectomy without a salvage attempt in a patient who is unstable or needs ongoing transfusion and pressors, and for a shattered or avulsed kidney found at exploration. Nonoperative management of stable grade V injury is described above; reconstruction is attempted only when physiology and viable tissue permit[2][14]. EAST 2023 conditionally recommends attempted kidney-preserving surgery (partial nephrectomy or repair) over total nephrectomy for hemodynamically unstable adults with an expanding Zone II hematoma requiring exploration; its evidence is very low certainty, and surgical feasibility and timely completion to avoid further physiologic compromise take precedence.[22]
Segmental vesselsLigation may control bleeding but sacrifices the supplied segment; assess remaining renal function
Main renal vein injuryPrimary repair if lumen not narrowed >50%; left renal vein can tolerate greater narrowing due to collateral drainage; right-side compromise → nephrectomy[2]
Main renal artery injuryUnilateral arterial thrombosis in a stable patient is usually observed; consider repair for bilateral injury or a solitary functional kidney. At exploration, options include primary repair, end-to-end anastomosis, saphenous vein interposition or endovascular stenting; outcomes are poor and nephrectomy is common.[14]

In a 21-center cohort of 1,181 patients with high-grade renal trauma, nephrectomy was associated with higher adjusted mortality (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.26–2.55), controlling for age, injury severity, shock and Glasgow Coma Scale but not transfusion volume.[27] A propensity-score analysis of 12,780 TQIP patients with high-grade renal trauma (1,014 nephrectomies) found unadjusted mortality was higher after nephrectomy (10.6% vs 4.2%), but after adjusting for blood products transfused and other factors, nephrectomy was not independently associated with mortality or acute kidney injury.[16] In a separate 2017–2021 national registry, kidney-preserving surgery (794 patients) versus nephrectomy (1,756 patients) was associated with more procedures for urine leakage (adjusted OR 1.40) but less acute kidney injury (OR 0.49) and hemodialysis (OR 0.32).[29] In the 12,780-patient high-grade TQIP cohort, nephrectomy was not associated with adjusted mortality.[16] In a separate 2013–2021 TQIP cohort of 2,214 penetrating grade III renal injuries treated by laparotomy, nephrectomy was associated with higher adjusted mortality (PR 1.53, 95% CI 1.06–2.20).[28] EAU weakly recommends renal reconstruction when bleeding is controlled and sufficient viable parenchyma remains.[14]

Follow-Up Imaging​

Early Follow-Up (48–72 Hours)​

Obtain contrast-enhanced CT with delayed phase within 48–72 hours for:[2]

  • Grades III–V injuries with ongoing blood loss or urine extravasation on initial imaging
  • Penetrating destructive firearm injury (grade III or above)
  • Symptoms suggesting complications (fever, worsening flank pain, ongoing blood loss)

Routine repeat CT is usually unnecessary for uncomplicated low-grade injury. AUA recommends follow-up CT for deep grade IV–V injury or clinical complication signs (Statement 7; Recommendation, Grade C).[4] Its discussion places routine deep-injury imaging after 48 hours; fever, worsening flank pain, ongoing blood loss or abdominal distension prompts imaging without waiting for that interval. EAU strongly recommends repeat imaging in high-grade and penetrating injuries (two to four days after injury) and for fever, worsening flank pain or a falling hematocrit, and states that it can be omitted in grade 1–3 injuries that stay clinically well.[14] Retrospective studies questioned routine imaging.[4][11][14]

Late Follow-Up (Weeks to Months)​

Symptoms prompt imaging regardless of the planned follow-up:[2]

  • New-onset gross hematuria
  • Clinical signs or symptoms of renal trauma complications

EAU gives a weak recommendation for review approximately 3 months after major injury, with urinalysis, renal function tests, blood pressure and individualized imaging (scintigraphy, CT or ultrasound); annual blood-pressure follow-up continues long term.[14]

Complications​

ComplicationNotes
Delayed hemorrhageMay present days to weeks after injury from a pseudoaneurysm or arteriovenous fistula. Angioembolization is preferred for active bleeding when feasible; persistent instability or uncontrolled bleeding requires operative control.[14][2]
Urine leak / urinomaStable parenchymal collecting-system leaks may be observed when renal pelvis or proximal ureteral avulsion is not suspected . An enlarging urinoma, fever, increasing pain, ileus, fistula or infection warrants drainage (Statement 8; Recommendation, Grade C), usually by ureteral stent with percutaneous urinoma drainage or nephrostomy added when needed [4]
Renovascular hypertensionRare but serious; associated with renal artery injury, large devitalized fragments, or Page kidney phenomenon (circumferential hematoma compressing parenchyma); activates renin-angiotensin system; may respond to antihypertensive treatment, drainage or selected surgery; a ten-patient referral series gives no population estimate of nephrectomy need;[12] ACS advises primary care follow-up for new hypertension after nonoperative management of a high-grade injury, with referral to urology or nephrology as needed[2]
Abscess / perinephric infectionRequires percutaneous drainage
Renal insufficiencyFollow renal function in high-grade injuries, especially with contralateral renal disease

Urine leak after partial nephrectomy. A urine leak after an elective partial nephrectomy, when the collecting system was entered and closed intraoperatively, is managed on similar drainage principles to a traumatic collecting-system injury. The chapter authors describe most leaks appearing within 72 hours; when drain output is high (typically more than 50 mL per 24 hours), they compare drain-fluid and serum creatinine, and consider testing unnecessary when output is low. Low output in the first 48 hours makes a leak unlikely enough that the drain can usually be removed at about 48 hours, and high output with high drain-fluid creatinine does not by itself require imaging if the patient has no significant symptoms. Persistent abdominal pain, fever, ileus, urine from the incision, or a disproportionate creatinine rise prompts cross-sectional imaging. Initial management is adequate drainage of the urinoma, with an additional percutaneous drain if the existing drain is insufficient; if the collection has not resolved within 48 hours or symptoms persist beyond 24 hours, the authors advise retrograde double-J stenting (kept low-pressure to avoid worsening the defect) and Foley drainage. Most fistulas managed this way resolve over 4-6 weeks, and reoperation is uncommon. These are the chapter authors' reported intervals and practice, not a validated comparative algorithm.[20]

Pediatric Considerations. In children, hypotension is a late sign of shock. Assess hematuria together with mechanism, flank findings, associated injuries and clinical status when selecting CT; significant renal injury can occur with little or no hematuria.[2][25] Ultrasound is insufficient for initial renal injury evaluation. NOM is recommended for all grades based on hemodynamic stability. For stable children, bed rest is not recommended; base hospital observation on clinical status rather than grade. Arrange blood-pressure checks after discharge and during long-term pediatric follow-up; individualize other follow-up to injury severity and the pediatric trauma pathway, and avoid routine repeat CT in clinically well children.[2][14] A preexisting, often unrecognized UPJ obstruction or a duplicated collecting system changes how a urine leak behaves in a child with renal trauma: an obstructed system can drain more slowly than routine observation expects, so delayed-phase CT or retrograde pyelography should specifically assess for a renal pelvis laceration or UPJ disruption. When obstruction is confirmed, prompt ureteral stenting (with temporary urinoma drainage if needed) followed by pyeloplasty once the leak has healed is a described sequence; one center's reported practice removed the stent before a robotic pyeloplasty 8–12 weeks later, with minimal periureteral scarring. In a duplex kidney, confirm which moiety is leaking before stenting, since a stent in the wrong ureter will not divert the leak.[19]

Geriatric Considerations. Anticoagulation status must be assessed on presentation; reversal should be considered for hemodynamically unstable patients or those with significant blood loss. Do not withhold contrast-enhanced CT based on age alone; evidence linking age alone to contrast-induced nephropathy is inconclusive. For stable geriatric patients with low-grade injury, consider early venous-thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis; after high-grade injury, ACS advises deferring it until clinical stability is established.[2]

Videos​

Delayed Robotic Reconstruction After High-Grade Renal and Ureteral Trauma
Kammo S, et al. Urology Video Journal 2026 (CC BY 4.0)
Open source videoRead the article

References​

1. McGeady JB, Breyer BN. Current epidemiology of genitourinary trauma. Urol Clin North Am. 2013;40(3):323–334. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2013.04.001.

2. American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Programs. ACS TQP Best Practices Guidelines: Management of Genitourinary Injuries. Chicago, IL; August 2025. ACS guideline PDF.

3. Voelzke BB, McAninch JW. Renal gunshot wounds: Clinical management and outcome. J Trauma. 2009;66(3):593–600. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e318196d0dd.

4. Morey AF, Broghammer JA, Hollowell CMP, et al. Urotrauma Guideline 2020: AUA Guideline. J Urol. 2021;205(1):30–35. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001408. Full guideline, published 2014; amended April 2017 and August 2020.

5. Expert Panel on Major Trauma Imaging, Shyu JY, Khurana B, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® major blunt trauma. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020;17(5S):S160–S174. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2020.01.024.

6. Kozar RA, Crandall M, Shanmuganathan K, et al. Organ injury scaling 2018 update: Spleen, liver, and kidney. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018;85(6):1119–1122. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000002058.

7. Keihani S, Gross JA, Joyce RP, et al. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Renal Grading System — Should Segmental Kidney Infarction be Classified as a Grade IV Injury? J Urology. 2021;205(1):165–173. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001240.

8. Hakam N, Keihani S, Shaw NM, et al. Grade V renal trauma management: Results from the Multi-institutional Genito-Urinary Trauma Study. World J Urol. 2023;41(7):1983–1989. doi:10.1007/s00345-023-04432-w.

9. Keihani S, Rogers DM, Putbrese BE, et al. A nomogram predicting the need for bleeding interventions after high-grade renal trauma: Results from the AAST Multi-institutional Genito-Urinary Trauma Study (MiGUTS). J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019;86(5):774–782. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000002222.

10. Hakam N, Amend GM, Nabavizadeh B, et al. Utility and outcome of angioembolization for high-grade renal trauma management in a large hospital-based trauma registry. J Urol. 2022;207(5):1077–1085. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002424.

11. Loftus CJ, Hagedorn JC, Johnsen NV. Does routine repeat imaging for blunt high-grade renal trauma lead to unnecessary interventions? J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021;90(1):143–147. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000002966.

12. Chedid A, Le Coz S, Rossignol P, Bobrie G, Herpin D, Plouin PF. Blunt renal trauma-induced hypertension: Prevalence, presentation, and outcome. Am J Hypertens. 2006;19(5):500–504. doi:10.1016/j.amjhyper.2005.08.015.

13. Keihani S, Tominaga GT, Matta R, Gross JA, Cribari C, Kaups KL, Crandall M, Kozar RA, Werner NL, Zarzaur BL, Coburn M, Myers JB. Kidney organ injury scaling: 2025 update. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2025;98(3):448–451. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000004509.

14. Waterloos M, Campos-Juanatey F, Hallscheidt P, et al. EAU Guidelines on Urological Trauma. Limited update, March 2026. Sections 4.1.3.a.4 and 4.1.4–4.1.7 (repeat imaging and follow-up). Guideline

15. Feliciano DV, Mattox KL, Moore EE, eds. Trauma. 9th ed. McGraw-Hill; 2020. Chapter on retroperitoneal hematoma and zone management.

16. McCormick BJ, Horns JJ, Das R, et al. Nephrectomy is not associated with increased risk of mortality or acute kidney injury after high-grade renal trauma: a propensity score analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP). J Urol. 2022;207(2):400–406. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002253

17. Buckley JC, McAninch JW. Reconstructive Surgery After Renal Trauma. In: Montague DK, Gill IS, Angermeier KW, Ross JH, eds. Textbook of Reconstructive Urologic Surgery. Informa Healthcare; 2008:97–100.

18. Johnsen NV. Renal Trauma. In: Smith JA Jr, Dmochowski RR, Thomas JC, Preminger GM, eds. Hinman's Atlas of Urologic Surgery. 5th ed. Elsevier; 2025:155–160.

19. Schlomer BJ, Jacobs MA. Pediatric Genitourinary Trauma. In: Partin AW, Dmochowski RR, Kavoussi LR, Peters CA, eds. Campbell-Walsh-Wein Urology. 13th ed. Elsevier; 2025:1289–1310.

20. Sharma V, Khanna A, Shah P. Contemporary Open Surgery of the Kidney. In: Partin AW, Dmochowski RR, Kavoussi LR, Peters CA, eds. Campbell-Walsh-Wein Urology. 13th ed. Elsevier; 2025:3025.

21. Reinisch J, de Klerk C, Maasdorp E, et al. "External validation of the MiGUTS nomogram following predominantly penetrating renal trauma in a South African population." World J Urol. 2025;43(1):408. doi:10.1007/s00345-025-05779-y

22. Abdel Aziz H, Bugaev N, Baltazar G, et al. "Management of adult renal trauma: a practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma." BMC Surg. 2023;23(1):22. doi:10.1186/s12893-023-01914-x

23. Menaker J, et al. "Angiointervention: high rates of failure following blunt renal injuries." World J Surg. 2011;35(3):520–527. doi:10.1007/s00268-010-0927-0

24. Hotaling JM, et al. "Analysis of diagnostic angiography and angioembolization in the acute management of renal trauma using a national data set." J Urol. 2011;185(4):1316–1320. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.003

25. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Paediatric Urology. 2026. Section 24.1, Paediatric renal trauma. Guideline

26. Kansas BT, Eddy MJ, Mydlo JH, Uzzo RG. "Incidence and management of penetrating renal trauma in patients with multiorgan injury: extended experience at an inner city trauma center." J Urol. 2004;172(4 Pt 1):1355–1360. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000138532.40285.44

27. Heiner SM, Keihani S, McCormick BJ, et al. "Nephrectomy After High-Grade Renal Trauma Is Associated With Higher Mortality: Results From the Multi-Institutional Genitourinary Trauma Study (MiGUTS)." Urology. 2021;157:246–252. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.07.033

28. Gomez M, Forssten MP, Neff LP, et al. "Contemporary management and outcomes of penetrating traumatic AAST-OIS grade III and IV kidney injuries undergoing laparotomy: a Trauma Quality Improvement Program analysis." Sci Rep. 2026;16:19164. doi:10.1038/s41598-026-47007-6

29. Ito MA, Takahashi K, Burg ML, et al. "The role of kidney-preserving surgery in renal trauma: A nationwide analysis." Surgery. 2025;185:109505. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2025.109505