Search

Background Conflict-related injuries sustained by civilians and local combatants are poorly described, unlike injuries sustained by US, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and coalition military personnel. An understanding of injury epidemiology in twenty-first century armed conflict is required to plan humanitarian trauma systems capable of responding to population needs. Methods We conducted a systematic search of databases (e.g., PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, World Health Organization Catalog, Google Scholar) and grey literature repositories to identify records that described conflict-related injuries sustained by civilians and local combatants since 2001. Results The search returned 3501 records. 49 reports representing conflicts in 18 countries were included in the analysis and described injuries of 58,578 patients. 79.3% of patients were male, and 34.7% were under age 18 years. Blast injury was the predominant mechanism (50.2%), and extremities were the most common anatomic region of injury (33.5%). The heterogeneity and lack of reporting of data elements prevented pooled analysis and limited the generalizability of the results. For example, data elements including measures of injury severity, resource utilization (ventilator support, transfusion, surgery), and outcomes other than mortality (disability, quality of life measures) were presented by fewer than 25% of reports. Conclusions Data describing the needs of civilians and local combatants injured during conflict are currently inadequate to inform the development of humanitarian trauma systems. To guide system-wide capacity building and quality improvement, we advocate for a humanitarian trauma registry with a minimum set of data elements. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00268-020-05428-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Children represent a significant percentage of casualties in modern conflict. Yet, the epidemiology of conflict-related injury among children is poorly understood. A comprehensive analysis of injuries sustained by children in 21st-century armed conflict is necessary to inform planning of local, military, and humanitarian health responses. Methods We conducted a systematic search of databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, World Health Organization Catalog, and Google Scholar to identify records that described conflict-related injuries sustained by children since 2001. Results The search returned 5,264 records. 9 eligible reports without potentially duplicative data were included in analysis, representing 5,100 pediatric patients injured in 5 conflicts. Blast injury was the most frequent mechanism (57%), compared to 24.8% in adults. Mortality was only slightly higher among children (11.0% compared to 9.8% among adults; p Conclusions Children sustain a higher proportion of blast injury than adults in conflict. Existing data do support the conclusion that child casualties have higher mortality than adults overall; however, this difference is slighter than has been previously reported. Specific subpopulations of children appear to have worse outcomes. Overall, non-uniform reporting renders currently available data insufficient to understand the needs of children injured in modern conflict.

Importance Armed conflict in the 21st century poses new challenges to a humanitarian surgical response, including changing security requirements, access to patients, and communities in need, limited deployable surgical assets, resource constraints, and the requirement to address both traumatic injuries as well as emergency surgical needs of the population. At the same time, recent improvements in trauma care and systems have reduced injury-related mortality. This combination of new challenges and medical capabilities warrants reconsideration of long-standing humanitarian surgery protocols. Objective To describe a consensus framework for surgical care designed to respond to this emerging need. Design, Setting, and Participants An international group of 35 representatives from humanitarian agencies, US military, and academic trauma programs was invited to the Stanford Humanitarian Surgical Response in Conflict Working Group to engage in a structured process to review extant trauma protocols and make recommendations for revision. Main Outcomes and Measures The working group’s method adapted core elements of a modified Delphi process combined with consensus development conference from August 3 to August 5, 2018. Results Lessons from civilian and military trauma systems as well as recent battlefield experiences in humanitarian settings were integrated into a tiered continuum of response from point of injury through rehabilitation. The framework addresses the security and medical requirements as well as ethical and legal principles that guide humanitarian action. The consensus framework includes trained, lay first responders; far-forward resuscitation/stabilization centers; rapid damage control surgical access; and definitive care facilities. The system also includes nontrauma surgical care, injury prevention, quality improvement, data collection, and predeployment training requirements. Conclusions and Relevance Evidence suggests that modern trauma systems save lives. However, the requirements of providing this standard of care in insecure conflict settings places new burdens on humanitarian systems that must provide both emergency and trauma surgical care. This consensus framework integrates advances in trauma care and surgical systems in response to a changing security environment. It is possible to reduce disparities and improve the standard of care in these settings.

What began in 2013 as the eruption of a political struggle between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir, a member of the Dinka ethnic group, and then–vice president Riek Machar, a Nuer, has splintered into a multifaction conflict. A dizzying array of armed groups have entered the fray, many unmotivated by political leverage that conventionally brings parties to a conflict to the negotiating table. Two years and tens of thousands of deaths after the 2015 signing of the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan, with no substantive progress toward meetings its terms, it is unrealistic to think that Intergovernmental Authority on Development’s recently announced High-Level Revitalization Forum will be sufficient to address the drivers of this conflict. Current policy proposals are poorly designed to address escalating intercommunal conflict and cattle raiding, both devastating forms of violence. As measures at the international level continue to be pursued, the conflict resolution strategy should also include a more comprehensive approach incorporating local actors in order to build momentum toward long-term stability. In this article, we highlight gaps in the current dialogue around a political solution in South Sudan, as well as domains that must be part of the next push for peace. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:663–671)

Humanitarian aid in settings of conflict has always been fraught with challenges. In the absence of political engagement, however, manipulation by state authorities, however, have the potential to pervert aid intervention to inflict harm. South Sudan exemplifies how states may abuse the humanitarian response to retreat from public responsibility, divert funds to further violence and conflict and dictate the distribution of aid. Recent trends toward nationalist policies in the West that favor disengagement and limited military strikes have the very effect of allowing this abuse to transform humanitarian aid into a tool for harm. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;12:567–568)