Thoracostomy in children with severe trauma: An overview of the paediatric experience in Victoria, Australia.

OBJECTIVE

Thoracic trauma is a leading cause of paediatric trauma deaths. Traumatic cardiac arrest, tension pneumothorax and massive haemothorax are life-threatening conditions requiring emergency and definitive pleural decompression. In adults, thoracostomy is increasingly preferred over needle thoracocentesis for emergency pleural decompression. The present study reports on the early experience of thoracostomy in children, to inform debate regarding the best approach for emergency pleural compression in paediatric trauma.

METHODS

Retrospective review of Ambulance Victoria and The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Trauma Registry between August 2016 and February 2019 to identify children undergoing thoracostomy for trauma, either pre-hospital or in the ED.

RESULTS

Fourteen children aged 1.2-15 years underwent 23 thoracostomy procedures over the 31 month period. The majority of patients sustained transport-related injuries, and underwent thoracostomies for the primary indications of hypoxia and hypotension. Two children were in traumatic cardiac arrest. Ten children underwent needle thoracocentesis prior to thoracostomy, but all required thoracostomy to achieve the necessary definitive decompression. All patients were severely injured with multiple-associated serious injuries and median Injury Severity Score 35.5 (17-75), three of whom died from their injuries. Thoracostomy in our cohort had a low complication rate.

CONCLUSION

In severely injured children, thoracostomy is an effective and reliable method to achieve emergency pleural decompression, including in the young child. The technical challenges presented by children are real, but can be addressed by training to support a low complication rate. We recommend thoracostomy over needle thoracocentesis as the first-line intervention in children with traumatic cardiac arrest, tension pneumothorax and massive haemothorax. [Correction added on 23 September 2019 after first online publication: in the second sentence of the conclusion, the words "under review process" were mistakenly added and have been removed.].