Search

Introduction: The United States and United Kingdom (UK) had differing approaches to the surgical skill mix within deployed medical treatment facilities (MTFs) in support of the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan., Methods: The US and UK combat trauma registries were scrutinized for patients with penetrating neck injury (PNI) at deployed coalition MTF between March 2003 and October 2011. A multivariate mixed effects logistic regression model (threshold, p < 0.05) was used stratified by MTF location and year of injury. The dependent variable was fatality on leaving Role 3, and the independent variables were ISS on arrival, nationality, MTF nationality, and presence of head and neck surgeon., Results: A total of 3,357 (4.9%) of 67,586 patients who arrived alive at deployed military MTF were recorded to have sustained neck injuries; of which 2,186 (83%) were PNIs and the remainder were blunt injuries. When service members killed in action were included, the incidence of neck injury rose from 4.9% to 10%. Seven hundred nine (32%) of 2,186 patients with PNI underwent neck exploration; 555 patients were recorded to have sustained cervical vascular injury, 230 (41%) of 555 underwent vascular ligation or repair. Where it was recorded, PNI directly contributed to death in 64 (28%) of 228 of patients. Fatality status was positively associated with ISS on arrival (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.06; p < 0.001) and the casualty being a local national (odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.38; p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Significant differences in the treatment and survival of casualties with PNI were identified between nations in this study; this may reflect differing cervical protection, management protocols, and surgical capability and is worthy of further study. In an era of increasing specialization within surgery, neck exploration remains a skill that must be retained by military surgeons deploying to Role 2 and Role 3 MTF., Level of Evidence: Retrospective cohort study, level III.

Much like other countries, Germany has recently seen terrorist attacks being planned, executed or prevented at the last minute. This highlights the need for expertise in the treatment of penetrating torso traumas by bullets or explosions. Data on the treatment of firearm injuries and, even more so, blast injuries often stems from crises or war regions. However, it is difficult to compare injuries from such regions with injuries from civilian terrorist attacks due to the ballistic body protection (protective vests, body armour) worn by soldiers. Methods An analysis was performed based on data from patients who were treated in the German Military Hospital Mazar-e Sharif for gunshots or injuries from explosions in the years 2009 to 2013. The data selection was based on patients with penetrating injuries to the thorax and/or abdomen. For better comparability with civilian attack scenarios, this study only included civilian patients without ballistic body protection (body armour, protective vests). Results Out of 117 analysed patients, 58 were affected by firearms and 59 by explosive injuries of the thorax or abdomen. 60% of patients had a thoracic injury, 69% had an abdominal injury, and 25.6% had combined thoracic-abdominal injuries. Blast injury patients were significantly more affected by thoracic trauma. As regards abdominal injuries, liver, intestinal, and colonic lesions were leading in number. Patients with blast injuries had significantly more injured organs and a significantly higher ISS averaging 29. 26% of the shot patients and 41% of the blast wounded patients received Damage Control Surgery (DCS). Despite a lower ISS, gunshot victims did not have a lower total number of operations per patient. Overall mortality was 13.7% (10.3% gunshot wounds, 16.7% blast injury). The highest mortality rate (25.7%) was recorded for patients with combined thoracoabdominal injuries (vs. 8.3% for thoracic and 8.7% for abdominal injuries). The ISS of deceased patients was significantly higher at 32.9%. Conclusion Patients without ballistic protection of the torso have high mortality rates, especially when suffering thoracoabdominal blast injuries. Blast injuries frequently lead to the DCS indication. The care of firearm and blast injury patients requires knowledge and competence in the damage control procedures for thorax and abdomen., Competing Interests: Interessenkonflikt: C. Güsgen, A. Willms, I. Richardsen, D. Bieler, E. Kollig, R. Schwab geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Aims: To identify the prevalence, injury patterns and mortality of penetrating abdominal injury in patients treated at the UK Role 3 Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) in Camp Bastion, Afghanistan., Methods: All patients with a penetrating abdominal injury were identified from the UK Joint Theatre Trauma Registry (JTTR). Demographics, predicted survival and observed mortality were compared. Sub-group analyses of UK military patients were conducted, comparing changes in survival as the campaign progressed and identifying the anatomical distribution of abdominal injuries., Results: Between June 2006 and June 2013, 1331 of the 8558 (16%) patients recorded on the JTTR had a penetrating abdominal injury; 393 were UK military, of whom 175 (45%) survived. 71% of UK military fatalities had the maximum New Injury Severity Score (NISS) of 75 compared to 4.6% of UK military survivors. The survival rate of UK military patients increased in the later stages of the campaign. Fatal injury in UK military patients was associated with significant vascular or hepatic injuries., Conclusions: This study has defined the epidemiology of penetrating abdominal injury in a modern conflict. Continued training and further research into injury prevention and management will help to ensure that the improved outcomes observed in Afghanistan continue on future operations.

Introduction: In recent military conflicts, military surgeons encounter more high-energy injuries associated with explosives. Advances in the field care and shorter evacuation time increased survival. However, casualties still incur severe injuries especially to the extremities. We present wound patterns, anatomical distribution and severity of injuries in a Role 2 hospital., Materials and Methods: Two years data have been retrospectively reviewed. Only explosives and firearms injuries were included in the study. Patient profile, admission details, mechanism of injury, AIS anatomical locations, ISS, surgical and medical treatments have been analyzed., Results: Data revealed 170 male casualties. IEDs and GSW accounted for 133 (78%) and 37 (22%) casualties, respectively. An average of 1.8 IED and 1.2 GSW anatomical locations were exposed to injuries. Regardless of the mechanism, injuries were most commonly located in the extremities. IEDs caused significantly higher soft tissue injuries., Discussion: Explosives do not necessarily cause more severe injuries than firearms. However, fragments create multiple, complicated soft tissue injuries which constitute more than half of the injuries. Timely wound debridement and excision of contaminated tissue are crucial to manage extremity soft tissue injuries., Conclusion: Casualty care should be assessed within the context of the capabilities present at a hospital and the cause, type and severity of the wounds. The NATO description of Role 2 care only requires an integrated surgical team for damage control surgery with limited diagnostic and infrastructural capabilities.