You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Case report
Traumatic chylothorax: a dilemma to surgeons and interventionists
  1. Parvez Mohi Ud Din Dar1,
  2. Shivanand Gamanagatti2,
  3. Pratyusha Priyadarshini1 and
  4. Subodh Kumar1
  1. 1Division of Trauma Surgery and Critical Care, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Delhi, India
  2. 2Radiodiagnosis, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Delhi, India
  1. Correspondence to Dr Subodh Kumar; subodh6{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Chylothorax is generally seen due to iatrogenic injury to the thoracic duct during thoracic or neck surgery. It can also be encountered secondary to chest trauma either blunt or penetrating. Percutaneous thoracic duct embolisation is an alternative to surgical treatment and is considered an effective and safe minimally invasive treatment option for chylothorax with a success rate of about 80%. We present a case of blunt trauma to the chest with chylothorax, which was successfully managed with transvenous retrograde thoracic duct embolisation.

  • trauma
  • interventional radiology
  • general surgery
  • vascular surgery

https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2020-238961

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors PMUDD was involved in the treatment, data collection and in the writing of the case report. PP was involved in writing the discussion and making the tables and treatment. SK combined all the data, figures, tables and discussion to write the final article and involved in treatment. SG was involved in the treatment and critical analysis of the data as well as the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.