Objective: The aproach to urologic emer-gencies in terms of diagnosis, treatment and guidance in high number of patient applicating hospitals as teaching and research hospitals is a matter in our country. In this study we eva-luated diagnosis and treatment modalities of urologic emergencies in Kartal Training and Research Hospital.
Material and Methods: Between January 2009 and January 2011 7305 patients who re-fered to emergency service and evaluated as an urologic emergency were considered retros-pectively. The demographical characteristics, diagnosis and treatment modalities of the cases were determined by reviewing the records of emergency service, emergency operating room and urology clinic. The patients were evaluated in terms of diagnosis and treatment modaliti-es. Totally 4092 (56%) urological emergency cases were male and 3213 (44%) were female. The mean age was 48.4 (2 months-96 years) and 37.9 (6 months-90 years) years in male and fe-male respectively.
Results: Totally 7305 (%1.87) of 389556 pa-tients were considered as urologic emergency. The rate of pediatric and over 70 years patients were 8.2% and 21.6% respectively. Six hundren and sixty three patients (9.07%) were hospita-lized for treatment. Four hundred and fourty nine patients (6.14%) had surgical intervention.
Conclusion: A careful evaluation of urolo-gic emergencies which require intervention in emergency room is the first order of importan-ce and can prevents the cituations which invol-ve the patient’s future.
Key Words: Urologic emergencies; urolo-gic trauma; urological injuries
Abstract
Objective: The aproach to urologic emer-gencies in terms of diagnosis, treatment and guidance in high number of patient applicating hospitals as teaching and research hospitals is a matter in our country. In this study we eva-luated diagnosis and treatment modalities of urologic emergencies in Kartal Training and Research Hospital.
Material and Methods: Between January 2009 and January 2011 7305 patients who re-fered to emergency service and evaluated as an urologic emergency were considered retros-pectively. The demographical characteristics, diagnosis and treatment modalities of the cases were determined by reviewing the records of emergency service, emergency operating room and urology clinic. The patients were evaluated in terms of diagnosis and treatment modaliti-es. Totally 4092 (56%) urological emergency cases were male and 3213 (44%) were female. The mean age was 48.4 (2 months-96 years) and 37.9 (6 months-90 years) years in male and fe-male respectively.
Results: Totally 7305 (%1.87) of 389556 pa-tients were considered as urologic emergency. The rate of pediatric and over 70 years patients were 8.2% and 21.6% respectively. Six hundren and sixty three patients (9.07%) were hospita-lized for treatment. Four hundred and fourty nine patients (6.14%) had surgical intervention.
Conclusion: A careful evaluation of urolo-gic emergencies which require intervention in emergency room is the first order of importan-ce and can prevents the cituations which invol-ve the patient’s future.
Key Words: Urologic emergencies; urolo-gic trauma; urological injuries