[VATS in Thorax Trauma]. / Videoassistierte Thorakoskopie (VATS) beim Thoraxtrauma.

Since the early 1990s, video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS) has been increasingly established for a variety of indications in the treatment of patients with thoracic trauma. During this time, one premise for the use of thoracoscopy has not changed. Its use is consistently recommended only for trauma patients with stable circulation and respiration. To define the indications of VATS for use in thoracic trauma, the Pulmonary Injury Group - as part of the Working Committee for Thoracic Trauma of the German Society for Thoracic Surgery (DGT) and the German Society for Trauma Surgery (DGU) - has developed treatment recommendations based on a current literature review (based on the PRISMA Checklist/here: MEDLINE via PubMed from 1993 to 2022). In the present study, after reviewing the available literature, the indications for VATS in the care of thoracic trauma were identified, in order to formulate clinical recommendations for the use of VATS in thoracic trauma. The analysis of 1679 references identified a total of 4 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 4 clinical trials, and 5 meta-analyses or systematic reviews and 39 reviews, which do not allow a higher level of recommendation than consensual recommendations, due to the low evidence of the available literature. Over the past 30 years, stabilisation options in the care of trauma patients have improved significantly, allowing expansion of indications for the use of VATS. Moreover, the recommendation for more than 50 years to thoracotomise trauma patients in case of an initial blood loss ≥ 1500 ml via the inserted chest drainage or in case of continuous blood loss ≥ 250 ml/h over 4 h is now only relative with today's better stabilisation measures. For unstable/non-stabilisable patients with a thoracic injury requiring emergency treatment, thoracotomy remains the method of choice, while VATS is recommended for a wide range of indications in the diagnosis and treatment of stable patients with a penetrating or blunt thoracic trauma. The indications for VATS are persistent haemothorax, treatment of injuries and haemorrhages to the lung, diaphragm, thoracic wall and other organ injuries, and in the secondary phase, treatment of thoracic sequelae of injury (empyema, persistent pulmonary fistula, infected atelectasis, etc.).

[Chest Tube in Thoracic Trauma - Recommendations of the Interdisciplinary Thoracic Trauma Task Group of the German Society for Thoracic Surgery (DGT) and the German Trauma Society (DGU)]. / Thoraxdrainage beim Thoraxtrauma ­ Empfehlungen der interdisziplinären Arbeitsgemeinschaft Thoraxtrauma der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Thoraxchirurgie (DGT) und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (DGU).

For unstable patients with chest trauma, the chest tube is the method of choice for the treatment of a relevant pneumothorax or haemothorax. In the case of a tension pneumothorax, needle decompression with a cannula of at least 5 cm length should be performed, directly followed by the insertion of a chest tube. The evaluation of the patient should be performed primarily with a clinical examination, a chest X-ray and sonography, but the gold standard of diagnostic testing is computed tomography (CT).A small-bore chest tube (e.g. 14 French) should be used in stable patients, while unstable patients should receive a large-bore drain (24 French or larger). Insertion of chest drains has a high complication rate of between 5% and 25%, and incorrect positioning of the tube is the most common complication. However, incorrect positioning can usually only be reliably detected or ruled out with a CT scan, and chest X-rays proofed to be insufficient to answer this question. Therapy should be carried out with mild suction of approximately 20 cmH2O, and clamping the chest tube before removal showed no beneficial effect. The removal of drains can be safely performed, either at the end of inspiration or at the end of expiration. In order to reduce the high complication rate, in the future the focus should be more on the education and training of medical staff members.

Traumatic diaphragmatic rupture: epidemiology, associated injuries, and outcome-an analysis based on the TraumaRegister DGU®.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic diaphragmatic rupture is a rare injury in the severely injured patient and is most commonly caused by blunt mechanisms. However, penetrating mechanisms can also dominate depending on regional and local factors. Traumatic diaphragmatic rupture is difficult to diagnose and can be missed by primary diagnostic procedures in the resuscitation room. Initially not life-threatening, diaphragmatic ruptures can cause severe sequelae in the patient's long-term course if untreated. The objective of this study was to assess the epidemiology, associated injuries, and outcome of traumatic diaphragmatic ruptures based on a multicenter registry-based analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from all patients enrolled in the TraumaRegister DGU® between 2009 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. That multicenter database collects data on prehospital, intra-hospital emergency, intensive care therapy, and discharge. Included were all patients with a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) score of 3 or above and patients with a MAIS score of 2 who died or were treated in the intensive care unit, for whom standard documentation forms had been completed and who had sustained a diaphragmatic rupture (AIS score of 3 or 4). The data has been analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square test or Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Of the 199,933 patients included in the study population, 687 patients (0.3%) had a diaphragmatic rupture. Of these, 71.9% were male. The mean patient age was 46.1 years. Blunt trauma accounted for 73.5% of the injuries. Primary diagnosis was established in the resuscitation room in 93.1% of the patients. Multislice helical computed tomography (MSCT) was performed in 82.7% of the cases. Rib fractures were detected in 60.7% of the patients with a diaphragmatic injury. Patients with diaphragmatic rupture had a higher mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) than patients without a diaphragmatic injury (32.9 vs. 18.6) and a higher mortality rate (13.2% vs. 9.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the literature, primary diagnostic procedures in the resuscitation room detected relevant diaphragmatic ruptures (AIS ≥ 3) in more than 90% of the patients in our study population. In addition, complex associated serial rib fractures are an important diagnostic indicator.

[Complications after conservative vs. operative treatment of severe thoracic trauma]. / Komplikationen nach operativer vs. konservativer Versorgung des schweren Thoraxtraumas.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic trauma is a frequent injury in the routine treatment of injured patients. Due to the increasing demographic changes a further increase is to be expected, especially after low-energy trauma. OBJECTIVE: Expected complications after conservative vs. operative treatment of various injury patterns of thoracic trauma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Evaluation of a selective literature search regarding possible complications after thoracic trauma and formulation of instructions for action as expert recommendations. CONCLUSION: Both conservative and operative treatment of thoracic trauma have their specific complications, which have to be known to the treating physician. Lung contusions are often underestimated in the initial radiological diagnostics but often lead to relevant problems during the further course of treatment. After conservative treatment of rib fractures persistent pain, functional limitations or even relevant deformities due to secondary dislocation, can remain. There is a significant risk of overlooking or underestimating relevant injuries during the initial diagnostics which then leads to secondary complications. By far the most frequent risk of surgical treatment is an incorrect positioning of chest tubes. Overall, postoperative infections after chest trauma are relatively rare.

Prehospital management of chest injuries in severely injured patients-a systematic review and clinical practice guideline update.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to review and update the existing evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations for the management of chest injuries in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries in the prehospital setting. This guideline topic is part of the 2022 update of the German Guideline on the Treatment of Patients with Multiple and/or Severe Injuries. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched to May 2021. Further literature reports were obtained from clinical experts. Randomised controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, and comparative registry studies were included if they compared interventions for the detection and management of chest injuries in severely injured patients in the prehospital setting. We considered patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality and diagnostic test accuracy. Risk of bias was assessed using NICE 2012 checklists. The evidence was synthesised narratively, and expert consensus was used to develop recommendations and determine their strength. RESULTS: Two new studies were identified, both investigating the accuracy of in-flight ultrasound in the detection of pneumothorax. Two new recommendations were developed, one recommendation was modified. One of the two new recommendations and the modified recommendation address the use of ultrasound for detecting traumatic pneumothorax. One new good (clinical) practice point (GPP) recommends the use of an appropriate vented dressing in the management of open pneumothorax. Eleven recommendations were confirmed as unchanged because no new high-level evidence was found to support a change. CONCLUSION: Some evidence suggests that ultrasound should be considered to identify pneumothorax in the prehospital setting. Otherwise, the recommendations from 2016 remained unchanged.