Novel method for comparing coverage by future methods of ballistic facial protection.

The wearing of eye protection by United Kingdom soldiers in Afghanistan has reduced the morbidity caused by explosive fragments. However, the remaining face remains uncovered because there is a lack of evidence to substantiate the procurement of methods to protect it. Using a new computerised tool we entered details of the entry sites of surface wounds caused by explosive fragments in all UK soldiers who were injured in the face between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2011. We compared clinical and predicted immediate and long term outcomes (as defined by the Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) and the Functional Capacity Index (pFCI), respectively). We also used the tool to predict how additional protection in the form of a visor and mandible guard would affect outcomes. A soldier wearing eye protection was 9 times (1.03/0.12) less likely to sustain an eye injury than one without. However, 38% of soldiers in this series were not wearing eye protection at the time of injury. There was no significant difference between the AIS and pFCI scores predicted by the tool and those found clinically. There is limited evidence to support the use of a mandible guard; its greatest asset is better protection of the nose, but a visor would be expected to reduce long-term morbidity more than eye protection alone, and we recommend future trials to assess its acceptability to users. We think that use of this novel tool can help in the selection of future methods of ballistic facial protection.

Using computerised surface wound mapping to compare the potential medical effectiveness of Enhanced Protection Under Body Armour Combat Shirt collar designs.

INTRODUCTION: Protecting the neck from explosively propelled fragments has traditionally been achieved through a collar attached to the ballistic vest. An Enhanced Protection Under Body Armour Combat Shirt (EP-UBACS) collar has been identified as an additional method of providing neck protection but limited evidence as to its potential medical effectiveness exists to justify its procurement. METHOD: Entry wound locations and resultant medical outcomes were determined using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) for all fragmentation neck wounds sustained by UK soldiers between 01 January 2010 and 31 December 2011. Data were prospectively entered into a novel computerised tool base and comparisons made between three EP-UBACS neck collar designs in terms of predicted reduction in AIS scores. RESULTS: All collars reduced AIS scores, with the greatest reduction provided by designs incorporating increased standoff from the neck and an additional semi-circle of ballistic material underneath the collar at the front and back. DISCUSSION: This technique confirms that reinforcing the neck collar of an EP-UBACS would be expected to reduce injury severity from neck wounds. However, without knowledge of entry wound locations for injuries to other body areas as well as the use of AIS scores without clinical or pathological verification its further use in the future may be limited. The ability to overlay any armour design onto a standardised human was potentially the most useful part of this tool and we would recommend developing this technique using underlying anatomical structures and not just the skin surface.