An Innovative Technique for Intraoperative Radiological Assessment of Pelvic and Spine Fractures in Austere Environment.

INTRODUCTION: Managing pelvic and spine fractures in the austere environment can be challenging even for skilled orthopedic surgeons, largely due to the difficulty of radiological visualization of bone structures. We present a simple alternative to the metallic operating table by placing the patient on a spinal board that will allow for a better radiological assessment of these fractures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, descriptive, and retrospective study was carried out in the period between 2015 and 2020. The study population was all patients with pelvic o spine fractures, managed surgically using a spinal board in the Spanish Role 2 or in the Spanish Role 4. RESULTS: Seven patients underwent surgery in total using a spinal board, pelvic fracture being the the main diagnosis (n = 6; 85.71%). The distribution of surgical procedures was as follows: percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (one case), external fixation of the pelvis (two cases), percutaneous screw fixation of the pelvis (two cases), and open reduction and internal fixation of the pelvis (two cases). The mean duration of surgical interventions was 52 minutes, and a successful reduction and synthesis of the fracture was obtained in all the patients, with no complications reported. CONCLUSION: A spinal board can be a useful, simple, and effective device for the orthopedic surgeon in the deployed setting. The described technique is simple, fast, and efficient in getting a complete radiological assessment of complex regions such as the pelvis and the spine, facilitating the surgical management of these injuries.

A Comparative Study Between Two Combat Injury Severity Scores.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, specific trauma scoring systems have been developed for military casualties. The objective of this study was to examine the discrepancies in severity scores of combat casualties between the Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005-Military (mAIS) and the Military Combat Injury Scale (MCIS) and a review of the current literature on the application of trauma scoring systems in the military setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional, descriptive, and retrospective study was conducted between May 1, 2005, and December 31, 2014. The study population consisted of all combat casualties attended in the Spanish Role 2 deployed in Herat (Afghanistan). We used the New Injury Severity Score (NISS) as reference score. Severity of each injury was calculated according to mAIS and MCIS, respectively. The severity of each casualty was calculated according to the NISS based on the mAIS (Military New Injury Severity Score-mNISS) and MCIS (Military Combat Injury Scale-New Injury Severity Score-MCIS-NISS). Casualty severity were grouped by severity levels (mild-scores: 1-8, moderate-scores: 9-15, severe-scores: 16-24, and critical-scores: 25-75). RESULTS: Nine hundred and eleven casualties were analyzed. Most were male (96.37%) with a median age of 27 years. Afghan patients comprised 71.13%. Air medevac was the main casualty transportation method (80.13). Explosion (64.76%) and gunshot wound (34.68%) mechanisms predominated. Overall mortality was 3.51%. Median mNISS and MCIS-NISS were similar in nonsurvivors (36 [IQR, 25-49] vs. [IQR, 25-48], respectively) but different in survivors, 9 (IQR, 4-17) vs. 5 (IQR, 2-13), respectively (P < .0001). The mNISS and MCIS-NISS were discordant in 34.35% (n = 313). Among cases with discordant severity scores, the median difference between mNISS and MCIS-NISS was 9 (IQR, 4-16); range, 1 to 57. CONCLUSION: Our study findings suggest that discrepancies in injury severity levels may be observed in one in three of the casualties when using mNISS and MCIS-NISS.