{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03229892336922103, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03356554781507283, 'mean_word_length': 5.4227642276422765, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Retrospective evaluation of urological admissions to emergency service of a training and research hospital.

OBJECTIVE
Many patients consult emergency services with urological complaints. The aim of this study was to investigate the epidemiology, clinical presentation and treatments of urological emergency cases in a training and research hospital.


MATERIAL AND METHODS
We retrospectively evaluated urological emergency patients referred to the emergency unit between July 2012 and July 2013 according to age, gender, affected organ, radiological imaging techniques and treatment.


RESULTS
Among 141.844 emergency cases, 3.113 (2.19%) were urological emergencies and 53.2% of the patients were male (mean age: 49.1), and 46.8% of them were female (median age: 42.8). The most frequent illness was genitourinary infection constituting 41.2% of the cases followed by renal colic (36.9%). Among the urological emergencies 483 (15.5%) patients were hospitalized and 152 surgical operations were performed. The mostly performed procedure was the placement of a suprapubic catheter in 34 patients constituting (22.3%) of the cases. Totally eight patients were referred to another experienced health center due to different reasons.


CONCLUSION
Most of the urological emergency patients do not require emergency surgical interventions however, timely identification and management of urological emergencies with in-depth clinical evaluation are important to prevent late complications. Therefore the doctors working in emergency services must be heedful of urological emergencies.