Share This Page

Lung transplant patient, 10, has more surgery

| Tuesday, July 2, 2013, 9:21 p.m.

PHILADELPHIA — A 10-year-old girl who had two adult-lung transplants because her parents sued to change national rules regarding organ donations underwent surgery on Tuesday to repair her diaphragm.

The operation performed at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia is expected to allow Sarah Murnaghan to breathe on her own. Sarah has needed a breathing tube since the successful June 15 transplant because she suffered a partial paralysis of her diaphragm during that procedure.

Her mother, Janet Murnaghan, wrote on her Facebook page that doctors said the operation went well.

“Sarah is still mostly sedated, waking periodically in pain, so aggressive pain management is under way,” she said.

Janet Murnaghan said her daughter has one chest tube back in place, and doctors expect to know by next week “whether her other muscles are strong enough to do the job of breathing after extubation or if she needs a temporary tracheostomy while we recondition her muscles.”

Sarah has been hospitalized for months with end-stage cystic fibrosis while awaiting two lungs.

The girl from Newtown Square, a Philadelphia suburb, was a top candidate for organs from a child donor, but none was available, and a national transplant policy put her at the bottom of the adult list — behind patients who were less critically ill.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.