Preliminary study into the skeletal injuries sustained to the spine from posterior non-perforating ballistic impacts into body armour.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this paper was to examine any injuries from posterior behind armour blunt trauma ballistic impacts directly over the spine onto typical hard body armours. Due to the spine being close to the surface of the skin and a lack of any previous specific research into this topic, this study was designed to gain preliminary insight into the mechanisms involved and injuries caused. Pigs were chosen as the closest representative of human spine, tissue and skin, although their spines are deeper under the surface than humans. Baseline spine and ribs shots were conducted to ensure that the study was effective. METHOD: This study used a 65 kg cadaveric pig eviscerated torso and 7.62 NATO ammunition (7.62×51; L2A2; mean velocity=838 m/s, SD=4 m/s) impacting hard body armour plates over the spine. Injuries were inspected, and sections were removed for X-ray and micro-CT assessment. RESULTS: There was no visible soft tissue damage under the impact point on the armour over the spine, and no bony injuries were reported. Baseline rib shots resulted in multiple rib fractures; some showed minimal displacement of the bone. Baseline spine shot resulted in damage across the spine involving spinal cord and bone. CONCLUSION: No injuries were noted from the spinal impacts, and the rib shots resulted in injuries consistent with those previously reported. The anatomical differences between pigs and humans does not preclude that bony injuries could occur in a human from these types of spinal ballistic impacts.

Skill sets required for the management of military head, face and neck trauma: a multidisciplinary consensus statement.

INTRODUCTION: The evolution of medical practice is resulting in increasing subspecialisation, with head, face and neck (HFN) trauma in a civilian environment usually managed by a combination of surgical specialties working as a team. However, the full combination of HFN specialties commonly available in the NHS may not be available in future UK military-led operations, necessitating the identification of a group of skill sets that could be delivered by one or more deployed surgeons. METHOD: A systematic review was undertaken to identify those surgical procedures performed to treat acute military head, face, neck and eye trauma. A multidisciplinary consensus group was convened following this with military HFN trauma expertise to define those procedures commonly required to conduct deployed, in-theatre HFN surgical combat trauma management. RESULTS: Head, face, neck and eye damage control surgical procedures were identified as comprising surgical cricothyroidotomy, cervico-facial haemorrhage control and decompression of orbital haemorrhage through lateral canthotomy. Acute in-theatre surgical skills required within 24 hours consist of wound debridement, surgical tracheostomy, decompressive craniectomy, intracranial pressure monitor placement, temporary facial fracture stabilisation for airway management or haemorrhage control and primary globe repair. Delayed in-theatre procedures required within 5 days prior to predicted evacuation encompass facial fracture fixation, delayed lateral canthotomy, evisceration, enucleation and eyelid repair. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of those skill sets required for deployment is in keeping with the General Medical Council's current drive towards credentialing consultants, by which a consultant surgeon's capabilities in particular practice areas would be defined. Limited opportunities currently exist for trainees and consultants to gain experience in the management of traumatic head, face, neck and eye injuries seen in a kinetic combat environment. Predeployment training requires that the surgical techniques described in this paper are covered and should form the curriculum of future military-specific surgical fellowships. Relevant continued professional development will be necessary to maintain required clinical competency.

Outcome of penetrating intracranial injuries in a military setting.

BACKGROUND: Penetrating intracranial injuries are common in the deployed military medical environment. Early assessment of prognosis includes initial conscious level. There has been no previous identification of different outcomes depending on mechanism of penetrating injury. The aim of this study was to define outcome from penetrating head injury in our population, and to compare outcome between gunshot wound (GSW) and blast fragment injury, in order to detect a difference in survival. METHODS: A retrospective database review was undertaken using the UK Joint Theatre Trauma Registry (JTTR) between the dates 2003 and 2011 to identify all cases of penetrating head injury. Data collected included mechanism of injury, first recorded GCS, injury severity score (ISS), abbreviated injury scale (AIS) head score, concomitant extracranial injury, surgical intervention, hospital length of stay, and survival. RESULTS: 813 patients sustained a penetrating head injury, of whom 625 were injured by blast fragmentation and 188 were injured by GSW; overall 336 patients (41.3%) died. There was a significant difference between survival from GSW (41.5%) and blast fragment (63.8%; p<0.001). In addition, the GCS in patients injured by GSW was significantly lower than that in patients injured by blast fragment. 157 cases sustained isolated head injury (79 GSW, 78 blast). The difference in injury severity between these groups was marked; median AIS was higher in the GSW group, survival lower (42% vs. 88%; p<0.001) and distribution of GCS categories less favourable (p<0.001). 338 of 343 patients (98.5%) with a best recorded GCS>5, survived to discharge. CONCLUSION: Most patients who present following penetrating intracranial injury, who have a GCS>5, survive to discharge. There is a significant difference in survival to hospital discharge following penetrating injury caused by blast fragment compared to those caused by GSW, partly attributable to a difference in injury severity. This is the first study to specifically highlight and define this difference.

Penetrating missile injuries during the Iraqi insurgency.

INTRODUCTION: Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the conflict has evolved from asymmetric warfare to a counter-insurgency operation. This study investigates the pattern of wounding and types of injuries seen in casualties of hostile action presenting to a British military field hospital during the present conflict. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on 100 consecutive patients either injured or killed from hostile action from January 2006 who presented to the sole coalition field hospital in southern Iraq. RESULTS: Eighty-two casualties presented with penetrating missile injuries from hostile action. Three subsequently died of wounds (3.7%). Forty-six (56.1%) casualties had their initial surgery performed by British military surgeons. Twenty casualties (24.4%) sustained gunshot wounds, 62 (75.6%) suffered injuries from fragmentation weapons. These 82 casualties were injured in 55 incidents (mean, 1.49 casualties; range 1-6 casualties) and sustained a total 236 wounds (mean, 2.88 wounds) affecting a mean 2.4 body regions per patient. Improvised explosive devices were responsible for a mean 2.31 casualties (range, 1-4 casualties) per incident. CONCLUSIONS: The current insurgency in Iraq illustrates the likely evolution of modern, low-intensity, urban conflict. Improvised explosive devices employed against both military and civilian targets have become a major cause of injury. With the current global threat from terrorist bombings, both military and civilian surgeons should be aware of the spectrum and emergent management of the injuries caused by these weapons.

Abdominal compartment syndrome: an emergency department perspective.

Compartment syndromes can occur in many body regions. Abdominal compartment syndrome, initially described many years ago, has become increasingly recognised in critical care patients. The key points regarding its definition, pathophysiology, aetiology and treatment are described and discussed. Abdominal compartment syndrome is defined as an intra-abdominal pressure >20 mm Hg with evidence of organ dysfunction. At risk patients should be identified in the emergency department and early monitoring of intra-abdominal pressure instituted. Interventions in the emergency department potentially contribute to the development of abdominal compartment syndrome during subsequent phases of care. The need to ensure an early multidisciplinary approach in the management of this complex condition is essential for the best possible patient outcome.