Comparison of the Outcome of Thoracic Cavity Irrigation Versus No Irrigation in Patients of Traumatic Hemothorax Undergoing Tube Thoracostomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

The proposed dissertation is a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of thoracic cavity irrigation versus no irrigation during tube thoracostomy in patients with traumatic hemothorax. Traumatic hemothorax is a frequent consequence of thoracic trauma and, if inadequately drained, can lead to retained hemothorax and severe complications like empyema, fibrothorax, and the need for secondary interventions such as video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). While systematic reviews and observational studies suggest that thoracic irrigation may significantly reduce these complications, there is a paucity of randomized trials, especially in the Indian context where trauma burden is high and access to advanced interventions is often limited.

This study aims to generate robust evidence on the clinical benefits of thoracic irrigation, particularly its ability to reduce retained hemothorax, minimize secondary interventions, shorten hospital stays, and lower healthcare costs. The trial holds particular relevance for resource-constrained settings like rural India and seeks to establish thoracic irrigation as a cost-effective, scalable intervention. The research question addresses whether thoracic irrigation improves patient outcomes compared to no irrigation, and the hypothesis posits that it will lead to significantly better clinical results. The primary objective is to compare the rate of secondary interventions between the two groups, while secondary objectives include evaluating the incidence of retained hemothorax, hospital stay duration, and complication rates. The findings are expected to influence clinical guidelines and improve trauma care practices in both high- and low-resource healthcare systems.