BackgroundSurgery for pulmonary aspergillosis is infrequent and often challenging. Risk assessment is imprecise and new antifungals may ameliorate some surgical risks. We evaluated the medical and surgical management of these patients, including perioperative and postoperative antifungal therapy.MethodsRetrospective study of patients who underwent surgery for pulmonary aspergillosis between September 1996 and September 2011.Results30 patients underwent surgery with 23 having a preoperative tissue diagnosis while 7 were confirmed post-resection. The median age was 57 years (17–78). The commonest presenting symptoms were cough (40%, n = 12) and haemoptysis (43%, n = 13). Twelve (40%) patients had simple aspergilloma (including 2 with Aspergillus nodules) while the remaining 18 (60%) had chronic cavitary pulmonary aspergillosis (CCPA) (complex aspergilloma). Most of the patients had underlying lung disease: tuberculosis (20%, n = 6), asthma (26%, n = 8) and COPD (20%, n = 6). The procedures included lobectomy 50% (n = 15), pneumonectomy 10% (n = 3), sublobar resection 27% (n = 8), decortication 7% (n = 2), segmentectomy 3% (n = 1), thoracoplasty 3% (n = 1), bullectomy and pleurectomy 3% (n = 1), 6% (n = 2) lung transplantation for associated disease. Median hospital stay was 9.5 days (3–37). There was no operative and 30 day mortality. Main complications were prolonged air leak (n = 7, 23%), empyema (n = 6, 20%), respiratory failure requiring tracheostomy /reintubation (n = 4, 13%). Recurrence of CCPA was noted in 8 patients (26%), most having prior CCPA (75%). Taurolidine 2% was active against all 9 A. fumigatus isolates and used for pleural decontamination during surgery.ConclusionsSurgery in patients with chronic pulmonary aspergillosis offered good outcomes with an acceptable morbidity in a difficult clinical situation; recurrence is problematic.

No abstract

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: 'In patients with extensive subcutaneous emphysema, which technique achieves maximal clinical resolution: infraclavicular incisions, subcutaneous drain insertion or suction on in situ chest drain?'. Altogether more than 200 papers were found using the reported search, of which 14 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Subcutaneous emphysema is usually a benign, self-limiting condition only requiring conservative management. Interventions are useful in the context of severe patient discomfort, respiratory distress or persistent air leak. In the absence of any comparative study, it is not possible to choose definitively between infraclavicular incisions, drain insertion and increasing suction on an in situ drain as the best method for managing severe subcutaneous emphysema. All the three techniques described have been shown to provide effective relief. Increasing suction on a chest tube already in situ provided rapid relief in patients developing SE following pulmonary resection. A retrospective study showed resolution in 66%, increasing to 98% in those who underwent video-assisted thoracic surgery with identification and closure of the leak. Insertion of a drain into the subcutaneous tissue also provided rapid sustained relief. Several studies aided drainage by using regular compressive massage. Infraclavicular incisions were also shown to provide rapid relief, but were noted to be more invasive and carried the potential for cosmetic defect. No major complications were illustrated.

The routine use of an intercostal chest drain after VATS lung biopsy unnecessarily increases the length of hospital stay without reduction in the incidence of pneumothorax.

Video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is used in lung surgery for diagnostic, staging, curative and palliative purposes. The port-sites are usually sutured with dissolvable sutures. The use of adhesive paper-tape for port-site closure was assessed by a prospective randomised double-blind control trial comparing sutured to adhesive paper-tape closure. The following outcomes were assessed: incidence of clinically significant pneumothorax, wound healing using the ASEPSIS score, patient's comfort (pain score using a visual analog score), the time difference between the two techniques of wound closure and cost savings. Thirty patients were recruited in each group. No clinically significant pneumothoraces occurred in either group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of immediate post-operative pain scores, wound cosmesis and wound complications. It was quicker to close the wound with adhesive paper-tape with a mean time of closure per unit length of wound of 9.3 and 2.2s/mm for the groups, respectively. The cost for wound closure (per patient) was $0.8 for the adhesive paper-tape group and $4.00 for the sutures.