4.4 Article

Videothoracoscopy versus intrapleural streptokinase for management of post traumatic retained haemothorax:: a retrospective study of 65 cases

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2004.10.008

Keywords

retained haemothorax; VATS; intrapleural streptokinase

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Post traumatic retained haemothorax (PRH) may cause pulmonary restrictions or septic pleural complications. Currently, minimally invasive procedures such as videothoracoscopy or intrapleural fibrinotysis have replaced open surgery in an effort to avoid these complications. Objective: We have reviewed retrospectively our use of videothoracoscopy versus intrapleural. streptokinase for the management of PRH over the last 10 years. Patients and method: There were 56 males and nine females in the study. Thirty-one cases had been managed by intrapleural streptokinase (group I), and videothoracoscopy was performed on 34 cases (group II). Therapeutic results for both groups were determined by chest radiographs. Results: In the population from which we drew our study group, retained haemothoraces occurred in 10.9% of 596 cases with traumatic haemothorax. In group I, 22 patients had radiological improvement; the others underwent thoracotomy. In this group, mean hospitalisation time was 14.5(+/- 4.2) days, and three cases were complicated by empyema. In group II, all. patients except four had complete radiological improvement; two of them required a decortication. In this group, mean hospital stay was 9.8(+/- 3.7) days. There were no deaths in either group. The differences between group I and group II for length of hospital stay and number of thoracotomies was statistically significant. Conclusion: Videothoracoscopy is therefore a more effective procedure than intrapteural streptokinase for the management of PRH. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All. rights reserved.

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