Jon C. Clasper

Injuries from roadside improvised explosive devices.

BACKGROUND After the invasion of Iraq in April 2003, coalition forces have remained in the country in a bid to maintain stability and support the local security forces. The improvised explosive device (IED) has been widely used by the insurgents and is the leading cause of death and injury among Coalition troops in the region. METHOD From January 2006, data were prospectively collected on 100 consecutive casualties who were either injured or killed in hostile action. Mechanism of injury, new Injury Severity Score (NISS), The International Classification of Disease-9th edition diagnosis, anatomic pattern of wounding, and operative management were recorded in a trauma registry. The weapon incident reports were analyzed to ascertain the type of IED employed. RESULTS Of the 100 casualties injured in hostile action, 53 casualties were injured by IEDs in 23 incidents (mean 2.3 casualties per incident). Twenty-one of 23 (91.3%) of the IEDs employed were explosive formed projectile (EFP) type. Twelve casualties (22.6%) were either killed or died of wounds. Median NISS score of survivors was 3 (range, 1-50). All fatalities sustained unsurvivable injuries with a NISS score of 75. Primary blast injuries were seen in only 2 (3.8%) and thermal injuries in 8 casualties (15.1%). Twenty (48.7%) of survivors underwent surgery by British surgeons in the field hospital. At 18 months follow, all but one of the United Kingdom Service personnel had returned to military employment. CONCLUSIONS The injury profile seen with EFP-IEDs does not follow the traditional pattern of injuries seen with conventional high explosives. Primary blast injuries were uncommon despite all casualties being in close proximity to the explosion. When the EFP-IED is detonated, the EFP produced results in catastrophic injuries to casualties caught in its path, but causes relatively minor injuries to personnel sited adjacent to its trajectory. Improvements in vehicle protection may prevent the EFP from entering the passenger compartments and thereby reduce fatalities.

Prevention of infections associated with combat-related extremity injuries

During combat operations, extremities continue to be the most common sites of injury with associated high rates of infectious complications. Overall, ∼ 15% of patients with extremity injuries develop osteomyelitis, and ∼ 17% of those infections relapse or recur. The bacteria infecting these wounds have included multidrug-resistant bacteria such as Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella species and Escherichia coli, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The goals of extremity injury care are to prevent infection, promote fracture healing, and restore function. In this review, we use a systematic assessment of military and civilian extremity trauma data to provide evidence-based recommendations for the varying management strategies to care for combat-related extremity injuries to decrease infection rates. We emphasize postinjury antimicrobial therapy, debridement and irrigation, and surgical wound management including addressing ongoing areas of controversy and needed research. In addition, we address adjuvants that are increasingly being examined, including local antimicrobial therapy, flap closure, oxygen therapy, negative pressure wound therapy, and wound effluent characterization. This evidence-based medicine review was produced to support the Guidelines for the Prevention of Infections Associated With Combat-Related Injuries: 2011 Update contained in this supplement of Journal of Trauma.

Guidelines for the prevention of infections associated with combat-related injuries: 2011 update endorsed by the infectious diseases society of America and the surgical infection society

Despite advances in resuscitation and surgical management of combat wounds, infection remains a concerning and potentially preventable complication of combat-related injuries. Interventions currently used to prevent these infections have not been either clearly defined or subjected to rigorous clinical trials. Current infection prevention measures and wound management practices are derived from retrospective review of wartime experiences, from civilian trauma data, and from in vitro and animal data. This update to the guidelines published in 2008 incorporates evidence that has become available since 2007. These guidelines focus on care provided within hours to days of injury, chiefly within the combat zone, to those combat-injured patients with open wounds or burns. New in this update are a consolidation of antimicrobial agent recommendations to a backbone of high-dose cefazolin with or without metronidazole for most postinjury indications, and recommendations for redosing of antimicrobial agents, for use of negative pressure wound therapy, and for oxygen supplementation in flight.

Learning the lessons from conflict: pre-hospital cervical spine stabilisation following ballistic neck trauma

BACKGROUND Current ATLS protocols dictate that spinal precautions should be in place when a casualty has sustained trauma from a significant mechanism of injury likely to damage the cervical spine. In hostile environments, the application of these precautions can place pre-hospital medical teams at considerable personal risk. It may also prevent or delay the identification of airway problems. In todays global threat from terrorism, this hostile environment is no longer restricted to conflict zones. The aim of this study was to ascertain the incidence of cervical spine injury following penetrating ballistic neck trauma in order to evaluate the need for pre-hospital cervical immobilisation in these casualties. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of British military casualties of combat, from Iraq and Afghanistan presenting with a penetrating neck injury during the last 5.5 years. For each patient, the mechanism of injury, neurological state on admission, medical and surgical intervention was recorded. RESULTS During the study period, 90 casualties sustained a penetrating neck injury. The mechanism of injury was by explosion in 66 (73%) and from gunshot wounds in 24 (27%). Cervical spine injuries (either cervical spine fracture or cervical spinal cord injury) were present in 20 of the 90 (22%) casualties, but only 6 of these (7%) actually survived to reach hospital. Four of this six subsequently died from injuries within 72 h. Only 1 (1.8%) of the 56 survivors to reach a surgical facility sustained an unstable cervical spine injury that required surgical stabilisation. This patient later died as result of a co-existing head injury. CONCLUSIONS Penetrating ballistic trauma to the neck is associated with a high mortality rate. Our data suggests that it is very unlikely that penetrating ballistic trauma to the neck will result in an unstable cervical spine in survivors. In a hazardous environment (e.g. shooting incidents or terrorist bombings), the risk/benefit ratio of mandatory spinal immobilisation is unfavourable and may place medical teams at prolonged risk. In addition cervical collars may hide potential life-threatening conditions.

Infection in conflict wounded

Although mechanisms of modern military wounding may be distinct from those of ancient conflicts, the infectious sequelae of ballistic trauma and the evolving microbial flora of war wounds remain a considerable burden on both the injured combatant and their deployed medical systems. Battlefield surgeons of ancient times favoured suppuration in war wounding and as such Galenic encouragement of pus formation would hinder progress in wound care for centuries. Napoleonic surgeons eventually abandoned this mantra, embracing radical surgical intervention, primarily by amputation, to prevent infection. Later, microscopy enabled identification of microorganisms and characterization of wound flora. Concurrent advances in sanitation and evacuation enabled improved outcomes and establishment of modern military medical systems. Advances in medical doctrine and technology afford those injured in current conflicts with increasing survivability through rapid evacuation, sophisticated resuscitation and timely surgical intervention. Infectious complications in those that do survive, however, are a major concern. Addressing antibiotic use, nosocomial transmission and infectious sequelae are a current clinical management and research priority and will remain so in an era characterized by a massive burden of combat extremity injury. This paper provides a review of infection in combat wounding from a historical setting through to the modern evidence base.

Modern military surgery

The types of explosive devices used in warfare and the pattern of war wounds have changed in recent years. There has, for instance, been a considerable increase in high amputation of the lower limb and unsalvageable leg injuries combined with pelvic trauma. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan prompted the Department of Military Surgery and Trauma in the United Kingdom to establish working groups to promote the development of best practice and act as a focus for research. In this review, we present lessons learnt in the initial care of military personnel sustaining major orthopaedic trauma in the Middle East.

Mortality and morbidity from combat neck injury

BACKGROUND: Neck injury represents 11% of battle injuries in UK forces in comparison with 2% to 5% in US forces. The aim of this study was to determine the causes of death and long-term morbidity from combat neck injury in an attempt to recommend new methods of protecting the neck. METHOD: Hospital and postmortem records for all UK servicemen sustaining battle injuries to the neck between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2010 were analyzed. RESULTS: Neck wounds were found in 152 of 1,528 (10%) of battle injured service personnel. Seventy-nine percent of neck wounds were caused by explosions and were associated with a mortality rate of 41% compared with 78% from gunshot wounds (GSWs). Although current UK OSPREY neck collars can potentially protect zone I from explosive fragments, in the 58% in which the wearing of a neck collar was known, all service personnel chose not to wear the collar. The most common cause of death from explosive fragments was vascular injury (85%). Zone II was the most commonly affected area overall by explosive fragments and had the highest mortality but zone I was associated with the highest morbidity in survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Nape protectors, that cover zone III of the neck posteriorly, would only have potentially prevented 3% of injuries and therefore this study does not support their use. Current UK OSPREY neck collars potentially protect against the majority of explosive fragments to zones I and II and had these collars been worn potentially 16 deaths may have been prevented. Reasons for their lack of uptake by UK servicemen is therefore being evaluated. Surface wound mapping of penetrating explosive fragments in our series has been used to validate the area of coverage required for future designs of neck protection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Comparison of development of heterotopic ossification in injured US and UK Armed Services personnel with combat-related amputations: preliminary findings and hypotheses regarding causality.

BACKGROUND Recent reports have documented the rate of heterotopic ossification (HO) formation in the residual limbs of combat-related amputees from the US Armed Forces injured in Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. Final amputation level within the zone of injury and blast as the mechanism of injury were identified as possible risk factors for the occurrence and grade of HO. There has been no previous description of HO in combat-related amputees from the UK service personnel. The purpose of this study was to examine potential differences in the prevalence of HO between UK and US Allied Forces, with particular attention to these risk factors, patient exposures, and any treatment differences between these two groups. METHODS We reviewed the medical records and radiographs of 35 combat-related amputations from the UK and contrasted them with 213 previously reported amputations in US military personnel. We evaluated prevalence and severity of residual limb HO, Injury Severity Score (ISS), the mechanism and zone of injury, type and level of amputation, number of debridements, method of wound irrigation, presence of severe head injury and/or burns injury, use of topical negative pressure therapy and pulse lavage, number of days until wound closure, type of closure, and subsequent infections. All patients had a minimum of 2-month posthospital discharge radiographic follow-up. Comparisons were made using Fishers exact, one-way analysis of variance, and chi2 analyses. RESULTS There was no significant difference in either the overall prevalence of HO or the prevalence of moderate to severe HO in the two populations. Twenty of 35 (57.1%) limbs in the UK amputations developed HO compared with 134 of 213 (63%) in the US amputations (p > 0.05). The UK amputations had 12 cases (34.3%) of moderate to severe HO compared with 72 cases (33.8%) in the US amputations (p > 0.05). However, there was a significant difference in the number of UK amputations 0 of 20 (0%) versus the number of US amputations 25 of 134 (12%; p = 0.04), which required excision of symptomatic lesions. There was a significant association in the development of HO in UK personnel with the use of topical negative pressure treatment (p = 0.05) and increasing ISS scores (p = 0.04) and in the development of moderate to severe HO with increasing ISS (p = 0.006) and severe HI (p = 0.04). Unlike in the previous report, no significant association was found in UK personnel between any of the remaining hypothesized risk factors and either the presence or grade of HO. CONCLUSIONS Although no difference was identified in the overall prevalence of HO, there are inconsistencies in the possible underlying causes of HO between the two cohorts. Further research is required in an ongoing effort to determine a causal relationship between treatment and subsequent HO formation.

Complications of extremity vascular injuries in conflict

INTRODUCTION The extremities remain the most common sites of wounding in conflict, are associated with a significant incidence of vascular trauma, and have a high complication rate (infection, secondary amputation, and graft thrombosis). AIM The purpose of this study was to study the complication rate after extremity vascular injury. In particular, the aim was to analyze whether this was influenced by the presence or absence of a bony injury. METHODS A prospectively maintained trauma registry was retrospectively reviewed for all UK military casualties with extremity injuries (Abbreviated Injury Score >1) December 8, 2003 to May 12, 2008. Demographics and the details of their vascular injuries, management, and outcome were documented using the trauma audit and medical notes. RESULTS Thirty-four patients (34%)--37 limbs (30%)--had sustained a total of 38 vascular injuries. Twenty-eight limbs (22.6%) had an associated fracture, 9 (7.3%) did not. Twenty-nine limbs (23.4%) required immediate revascularization to preserve their limb: 16 limbs (13%) underwent an initial Damage Control procedure, and 13 limbs (10.5%) underwent Definitive Surgery. Overall, there were 25 limbs (20.2%) with complications. Twenty-two were in the 28 limbs with open fractures, 3 were in the 9 limbs without a fracture (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the complication rate with respect to upper versus lower limb and damage control versus definitive surgery. CONCLUSION We have demonstrated that prognosis is worse after military vascular trauma if there is an associated fracture, probably due to higher energy transfer and greater tissue damage.

Infection prevention and control in deployed military medical treatment facilities.

Infections have complicated the care of combat casualties throughout history and were at one time considered part of the natural history of combat trauma. Personnel who survived to reach medical care were expected to develop and possibly succumb to infections during their care in military hospitals. Initial care of war wounds continues to focus on rapid surgical care with debridement and irrigation, aimed at preventing local infection and sepsis with bacteria from the environment (e.g., clostridial gangrene) or the casualtys own flora. Over the past 150 years, with the revelation that pathogens can be spread from patient to patient and from healthcare providers to patients (including via unwashed hands of healthcare workers, the hospital environment and fomites), a focus on infection prevention and control aimed at decreasing transmission of pathogens and prevention of these infections has developed. Infections associated with combat-related injuries in the recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have predominantly been secondary to multidrug-resistant pathogens, likely acquired within the military healthcare system. These healthcare-associated infections seem to originate throughout the system, from deployed medical treatment facilities through the chain of care outside of the combat zone. Emphasis on infection prevention and control, including hand hygiene, isolation, cohorting, and antibiotic control measures, in deployed medical treatment facilities is essential to reducing these healthcare-associated infections. This review was produced to support the Guidelines for the Prevention of Infections Associated With Combat-Related Injuries: 2011 Update contained in this supplement of Journal of Trauma.