4.4 Article

Management of simple and retained hemothorax: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 221, Issue 5, Pages 873-884

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.11.032

Keywords

Hemothorax; Thoracoscopy; Pigtail catheters; Tube thoracostomy; Thrombolytic therapy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study focused on the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of traumatic hemothorax, providing recommendations for treatment in different scenarios. The results suggest that clinical practice should consider the stability of the patient's condition and the timing of treatment interventions.
Background: Traumatic hemothorax poses diagnostic and therapeutic challenges both acutely and chronically. A working group of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma convened to formulate a practice management guideline for traumatic hemothorax. Methods: We formulated four questions: whether tube thoracostomy vs observation be performed, should pigtail catheter versus thoracostomy tube be placed to drain hemothorax, should thrombolytic therapy be attempted versus immediate thoracoscopic assisted drainage (VATS) in retained hemothorax (rHTX), and should early VATS (<= 4 days) versus late VATS (>4 days) be performed? A systematic review was undertaken from articles identified in multiple databases. Results: A total of 6391 articles were identified, 14 were selected for guideline construction. Most articles were retrospective with very low-quality evidence. We performed meta-analysis for some of the outcomes for three of the questions. Conclusions: For traumatic hemothorax we conditionally recommend pigtail catheters, in hemodynamically stable patients. In patients with rHTX, we conditionally recommend VATS rather than attempting thrombolytic therapy and recommend that it should be performed early (<= 4 days). (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available