Objective Traumatic sternal fractures are injuries most commonly resulting from a direct blow to the anterior chest wall or forced deceleration. The purpose of this review is to define the clinical significance of these injuries, outline their initial evaluation and work up, and review current treatment strategies available and their outcomes. Background The diagnosis of traumatic sternal fractures has seen a recent rise, largely due to the increased access to computed tomography (CT) scan. Currently, there are no published guidelines to make recommendations on operative fixation for sternal fractures. This is probably related to the lack of evidence in published literature along with patient heterogeneity. Methods We conducted a non-systematic review of the English literature published from January 2000 to December 2020, including meta-analyses, systematic reviews, case series and case reports regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and complications of traumatic sternal fractures. We critically analyzed the available evidence to provide an overview of the treatment and clinical outcomes of traumatic sternal fractures. Conclusion Isolated sternal fractures are commonly benign injuries that can be managed conservatively in an outpatient setting. Polytrauma patients with sternal fractures should be carefully screened for possible associated injuries. Surgical stabilization of sternal fractures is feasible and safe, and should be considered in unstable fractures, severe displacement, symptomatic malunion or non-union.

Laparoscopic ligation of cisterna chyli is an available therapeutic option for patients with chylothorax unresponsive to medical management, embolization, and transthoracic ligation of the thoracic duct. Our series is comparable with other reports of transabdominal approach to chylothorax.

Early experience suggests that LTD chest surgery is feasible and safe on short- to midterm follow-up. The specific role of LTD chest surgery will require definition of patient selection criteria, further experience to reduce operative time, long-term follow-up, and prospective comparison with conventional VATS.

No abstract

Background: Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) segmentectomy is gaining worldwide acceptance, but experience in North America is still limited. We report a North American multicenter comparison of uniportal vs. multiportal VATS segmentectomy. Methods:We performed an institutional review board-exempt retrospective chart review on prospectively collected databases at two North American centers, from January 2012 to December 2020. We included all VATS segmentectomy patients and excluded emergent cases (n=1), patients with incomplete records (n=2), and segmentectomy performed in conjunction with another type of lung resection (n=1). We recorded patient demographics, perioperative data, 30-day postoperative complications and compared outcomes between cohorts. We provided descriptive statistics for each group. We calculated propensity score matching and paired patients 1:1. We defined P values less than 0.05 as statistically significant.Results: We performed a total of 423 VATS segmentectomies, 181 uniportal (42.7%) vs. 242 multiportal (57.2%). Indications for surgery were primary lung cancer (n=339), metastatic (n=41), benign disease (n=40), and other (n=3). We staged 85.1% of patients preoperatively with PET-CT scan according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Propensity score matching generated 156 patients on each group. Operating time was significantly lower in the uniportal group compared to multiportal (130 vs. 161 min respectively, P<0.001). We found no difference in estimated blood loss, Clavien-Dindo class III-IV complications, conversion to thoracotomy, R0 resection rate, nodal upstaging, hospital length of stay, 30-day readmission or mortality.Conclusions: Our experience from two North American centers indicates that, in experienced hands, postoperative outcomes after uniportal and multiportal VATS segmentectomy are comparable.