Lung sparing damage control surgery for major thoracic trauma - A 5-year experience

This prospective study was carried out to compare the outcome of lung sparing damage control surgery versus major pulmonary resections for extensive thoracic trauma. Methods: The study analyses the results of 52 trauma victims who underwent thoracotomy for pulmonary injuries over a period of 5 years. Operative techniques, postoperative complications and mortality were assessed in both groups, results analysed with the help of Fisher's exact test and Chi-square test and the analysis of variance for comparative analysis carried out with SPSS 10.0. Results: Penetrating trauma was the main cause of thoracic injuries affecting 39/52 patients. Associated injuries were found in 9/13 blunt trauma victims, but only in 11/39 penetrating trauma sufferers. The morbidity and mortality were significantly higher after major resections, 6/11 and 2/11, as compared to lung sparing surgery, 10/41 and 2/41, respectively (p = 0.001). Conclusion: We recommend the use of lung sparing damage control techniques to manage major thoracic trauma requiring surgical intervention. Lung sparing surgery is an effective and much safer option as compared to major pulmonary resection when treating extensive lung trauma. © Urban & Vogel.