An Analysis of Head and Neck Surgical Workload During Recent Combat Operations From 2002 to 2016.

INTRODUCTION: In battle-injured U.S. service members, head and neck (H&N) injuries have been documented in 29% who were treated for wounds in deployed locations and 21% who were evacuated to a Role 4 MTF. The purpose of this study is to examine the H&N surgical workload at deployed U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to inform training, needed proficiency, and MTF manning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the DoD Trauma Registry was performed for all Role 2 and Role 3 MTFs, from January 2002 to May 2016; 385 ICD-9 CM procedure codes were identified as H&N surgical procedures and were stratified into eight categories. For the purposes of this analysis, H&N procedures included dental, ophthalmologic, airway, ear, face, mandible maxilla, neck, and oral injuries. Traumatic brain injuries and vascular injuries to the neck were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 15,620 H&N surgical procedures were identified at Role 2 and Role 3 MTFs. The majority of H&N surgical procedures (14,703, 94.14%) were reported at Role 3 facilities. Facial bone procedures were the most common subgroup across both roles of care (1,181, 75.03%). Tracheostomy accounted for 16.67% of all H&N surgical procedures followed by linear repair of laceration of eyelid or eyebrow (8.23%) and neck exploration (7.41%). H&N caseload was variable. CONCLUSIONS: H&N procedures accounted for 8.25% of all surgical procedures performed at Role 2 and Role 3 MTFs; the majority of procedures were eye (40.54%) and airway (18.50%). These data can be used as planning tools to help determine the medical footprint and also to help inform training and sustainment requirements for deployed military general surgeons especially if future contingency operations are more constrained in terms of resources and personnel.

Combat thoracic surgery in Iraq and Afghanistan: 2002-2016.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic surgery constitutes 2.5% of surgical procedures performed in theater, but the skills required are increasingly foreign to military surgeons. This study examines thoracic surgical workload in Iraq and Afghanistan to help define surgical training gaps. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of Department of Defense Trauma Registry for all role 2 (R2) (forward surgical) and role 3 (R3) (theater) military facilities, from January 2002 to May 2016. The 95 thoracic surgical International Classification of Diseases-9th Rev.-Clinical Modification procedure codes were grouped into 10 categories based on anatomy or endoscopy. Select groups were further stratified by type of definitive procedure. Procedure groupings were determined and adjudicated by surgeon subject matter experts. Data analysis used Stata Version 15 (College Station, TX). RESULTS: Of the total procedures, 5,301 were classified as thoracic surgical procedures and were included in the present study. The majority of thoracic surgical procedures (4,645 [87.6%]) were recorded as being performed at R3 medical treatment facilities (MTFs). The thoracic surgical procedures groups with the largest proportions were: bronchoscopy (39.1%), thoracotomy (16.9%), diaphragm (15.6%), and lung (11.4%). The most common lung procedure subgroup, aside from not otherwise specified, was segmentectomy (28.8%). The R3 MTFs recorded nearly five times the number of lung procedures compared with R2 MTFs; with R3 MTFs recording more than eight times the number of lobectomies compared with R2 MTFs. Thoracic workload was variable over the 15-year study period. CONCLUSION: Thoracic surgical skills are necessary in the deployed environment to manage combat-related injuries. Given the current trends in training and specialization, development and sustainment of thoracic surgical skills is challenging in the deployed US trauma system and likely for other nations, and humanitarian surgical care as well. Current training and practice paradigms pose both training and sustainment challenges for surgeons who deploy to a combat zone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management IV.

Establishing an enduring Military Trauma Mortality Review: Misconceptions and lessons learned.

Under direction from the Defense Health Agency, subject matter experts (SMEs) from the Joint Trauma System, Armed Forces Medical Examiner System, and civilian sector established the Military Trauma Mortality Review process. To establish the most empirically robust process, these SMEs used both qualitative and quantitative methods published in a series of peer-reviewed articles over the last 3 years. Most recently, the Military Mortality Review process was implemented for the first time on all battle-injured service members attached to the United States Special Operations Command from 2001 to 2018. The current Military Mortality Review process builds on the strengths and limitations of important previous work from both the military and civilian sector. To prospectively improve the trauma care system and drive preventable death to the lowest level possible, we present the main misconceptions and lessons learned from our 3-year effort to establish a reliable and sustainable Military Trauma Mortality Review process. These lessons include the following: (1) requirement to use standardized and appropriate lexicon, definitions, and criteria; (2) requirement to use a combination of objective injury scoring systems, forensic information, and thorough SME case review to make injury survivability and death preventability determinations; (3) requirement to use nonmedical information to make reliable death preventability determinations and a comprehensive list of opportunities for improvement to reduce preventable deaths within the trauma care system; and (4) acknowledgment that the military health system still has gaps in current infrastructure that must be addressed to globally and continuously implement the process outlined in the Military Trauma Mortality Review process in the future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Tactical Combat Casualty Care Training, Knowledge, and Utilization in the US Army.

INTRODUCTION: Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) is the execution of prehospital trauma skills in the combat environment. TCCC was recognized by the 2018 Department of Defense Instruction on Medical Readiness Training as a critical wartime task. This study examines the training, understanding, and utilization of TCCC principles and guidelines among US Army medical providers and examines provider confidence of medics in performing TCCC skills. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey, developed by members of the Committee on TCCC, was distributed to all US Army Physicians and Physician Assistants via anonymous electronic communication. RESULTS: A total of 613 completed surveys were included in the analyses. Logistic regression analyses were conducted on: TCCC test score of 80% or higher, confidence with medic utilization of TCCC, and medic utilization of ketamine in accordance with TCCC. CONCLUSIONS: <60% of respondents expressed confidence in the ability of the medics to perform all TCCC skills. Supervising providers who that believed 80 to 100% of their medics had completed TCCC training had more confidence in their medic's TCCC abilities. With TCCC, a recognized lifesaver on the battlefield, continued training and utilization of TCCC concepts are paramount for deploying personnel.

Nonfatal motor vehicle related injuries among deployed US Service members: Characteristics, trends, and risks for limb amputations.

BACKGROUND: Motor vehicle-related (MVR) incidents are important causes of morbidity among deployed US service members (SMs). Nonbattle MVR injuries are usually similar to civilian MVR injuries, while battle MVR injuries are often unique due to the blast effects from precipitating explosive mechanisms. Our primary objective was to describe the characteristics and trends of nonfatal MVR injuries sustained by deployed US SMs. A second objective was to assess the association between mechanism of injury (i.e., explosive vs. nonexplosive) and limb amputation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis using data from the Department of Defense Trauma Registry collected from October 2001 to December 2018. Descriptive statistics were reported stratified by mechanism of injury (explosive vs. nonexplosive). The association between mechanism of injury and limb amputation was assessed using logistic regression models. RESULTS: There were 3,119 US casualties who sustained nonfatal MVR injuries, 2,380 (76.3%) SMs sustained nonexplosive MVR injuries while 739 (23.7%) sustained explosive MVR injuries. Of all MVR casualties, 2,085 (66.9%) were in Iraq or Syria and 1034 (33.1%) in Afghanistan. The annual prevalence of nonfatal MVR battle casualties was highest in Iraq and Syria from 2003 to 2009 and Afghanistan from 2009 to 2014, ranging overall 15 to 50 MVR casualties per 1,000 wounded in action. There were 92 limb amputations associated with MVR incidents. Compared with nonexplosive MVR mechanisms, explosive MVR mechanisms had higher association with limb amputation (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; confidence interval, 1.7-3.9), even after adjusting for injury year and Injury Severity Score (AOR, 2.1; confidence interval: 1.4-3.4). CONCLUSION: Motor vehicle-related incidents are an important cause of injury in US military operations. Compared with nonexplosive MVR incidents, explosive MVR incidents result in more severe injuries, and have a higher associated risk of limb amputation. Continued efforts to improve injury prevention through protective equipment and medical training specific to MVR injuries are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological study, Level III.

Patterns of Anatomic Injury in Critically Injured Combat Casualties: A Network Analysis.

A mortality review of death caused by injury requires a determination of injury survivability prior to a determination of death preventability. If injuries are nonsurvivable, only non-medical primary prevention strategies have potential to prevent the death. Therefore, objective measures are needed to empirically inform injury survivability from complex anatomic patterns of injury. As a component of injury mortality reviews, network structures show promise to objectively elucidate survivability from complex anatomic patterns of injury resulting from explosive and firearm mechanisms. In this network analysis of 5,703 critically injured combat casualties, patterns of injury among fatalities from explosive mechanisms were associated with both a higher number and severity of anatomic injuries to regions such as the extremities, abdomen, and thorax. Patterns of injuries from a firearm were more isolated to individual body regions with fatal patterns involving more severe injuries to the head and thorax. Each injury generates a specific level of risk as part of an overall anatomic pattern to inform injury survivability not always captured by traditional trauma scoring systems. Network models have potential to further elucidate differences between potentially survivable and nonsurvivable anatomic patterns of injury as part of the mortality review process relevant to improving both the military and civilian trauma care systems.

Correction to: Description of trauma among French service members in the Department of Defense Trauma Registry: understanding the nature of trauma and the care provided.

After publication of this article [1], it was brought to our attention that the Fig. 2 is incorrect. The correct Fig. 2 is as below.

An Analysis of Orthopedic Surgical Procedures Performed During U.S. Combat Operations from 2002 to 2016.

INTRODUCTION: Orthopedic surgery constitutes 27% of procedures performed for combat injuries. General surgeons may deploy far forward without orthopedic surgeon support. This study examines the type and volume of orthopedic procedures during 15 years of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the US Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DoDTR) was performed for all Role 2 and Role 3 facilities, from January 2002 to May 2016. The 342 ICD-9-CM orthopedic surgical procedure codes identified were stratified into fifteen categories, with upper and lower extremity subgroups. Data analysis used Stata Version 14 (College Station, TX). RESULTS: A total of 51,159 orthopedic procedures were identified. Most (43,611, 85.2%) were reported at Role 3 s. More procedures were reported on lower extremities (21,688, 57.9%). Orthopedic caseload was extremely variable throughout the 15-year study period. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopedic surgical procedures are common on the battlefield. Current dispersed military operations can occur without orthopedic surgeon support; general surgeons therefore become responsible for initial management of all injuries. Debridement of open fracture, fasciotomy, amputation and external fixation account for 2/3 of combat orthopedic volume; these procedures are no longer a significant part of general surgery training, and uncommonly performed by general/trauma surgeons at US hospitals. Given their frequency in war, expertise in orthopedic procedures by military general surgeons is imperative.

Use of Combat Casualty Care Data to Assess the US Military Trauma System During the Afghanistan and Iraq Conflicts, 2001-2017.

Importance: Although the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts have the lowest US case-fatality rates in history, no comprehensive assessment of combat casualty care statistics, major interventions, or risk factors has been reported to date after 16 years of conflict. Objectives: To analyze trends in overall combat casualty statistics, to assess aggregate measures of injury and interventions, and to simulate how mortality rates would have changed had the interventions not occurred. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of all available aggregate and weighted individual administrative data compiled from Department of Defense databases on all 56 763 US military casualties injured in battle in Afghanistan and Iraq from October 1, 2001, through December 31, 2017. Casualty outcomes were compared with period-specific ratios of the use of tourniquets, blood transfusions, and transport to a surgical facility within 60 minutes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were casualty status (alive, killed in action [KIA], or died of wounds [DOW]) and the case-fatality rate (CFR). Regression, simulation, and decomposition analyses were used to assess associations between covariates, interventions, and individual casualty status; estimate casualty transitions (KIA to DOW, KIA to alive, and DOW to alive); and estimate the contribution of interventions to changes in CFR. Results: In aggregate data for 56 763 casualties, CFR decreased in Afghanistan (20.0% to 8.6%) and Iraq (20.4% to 10.1%) from early stages to later stages of the conflicts. Survival for critically injured casualties (Injury Severity Score, 25-75 [critical]) increased from 2.2% to 39.9% in Afghanistan and from 8.9% to 32.9% in Iraq. Simulations using data from 23 699 individual casualties showed that without interventions assessed, CFR would likely have been higher in Afghanistan (15.6% estimated vs 8.6% observed) and Iraq (16.3% estimated vs 10.1% observed), equating to 3672 additional deaths (95% CI, 3209-4244 deaths), of which 1623 (44.2%) were associated with the interventions studied: 474 deaths (12.9%) (95% CI, 439-510) associated with the use of tourniquets, 873 (23.8%) (95% CI, 840-910) with blood transfusion, and 275 (7.5%) (95% CI, 259-292) with prehospital transport times. Conclusions and Relevance: Our analysis suggests that increased use of tourniquets, blood transfusions, and more rapid prehospital transport were associated with 44.2% of total mortality reduction. More critically injured casualties reached surgical care, with increased survival, implying improvements in prehospital and hospital care.

Description of trauma among French service members in the Department of Defense Trauma Registry: understanding the nature of trauma and the care provided.

BACKGROUND: Since 2001, the French Armed Forces have sustained many casualties during the Global War on Terror; however, even today, there is no French Military trauma registry. Some French service members (SMs) were treated in US Military Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs) and were recorded in the US Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DoDTR). Our objective was to conduct a descriptive analysis of the injuries sustained by French SMs reported in the DoDTR and subsequent care provided to them to assist in understanding the importance of building a French Military trauma registry. METHODS: Using DoDTR data collected from 2001 to 2017, a retrospective descriptive analysis was conducted. We identified 59 French SMs treated in US MTFs. The characteristics of the SMs' demographics, injuries, care provided to them, and discharge outcomes were summarized. RESULTS: Among the 59 French SMs identified, 46 (78%) sustained battle injuries (BIs) and 13 (22%) sustained nonbattle injuries (NBIs). There were 47 (80%) SMs injured in Afghanistan (Opération Pamir), while 12 (20%) were injured in Opération Chammal in Iraq and Syria. Explosives accounted for 52.5% of injuries, while 25.4% were due to gunshot wounds; all were BIs. The majority of reported injuries were penetrating (59.3%), most of which were BIs (71.7%). The mean Injury Severity Score for BIs was 12 (SD = 8.9) compared to 6 (SD = 1.7) for NBIs. Around half of SMs (n = 30; 51%) were injured in Afghanistan between the years 2008-2010. Among a total of 246 injuries sustained by 59 patients, extremities were the body part most prone to BIs followed by the head and face. Four SMs died after admission (6.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The DoDTR provides extensive data on trauma injuries that can be used to inform injury prevention and clinical care. The majority of injuries sustained by French SMs were BIs, caused by explosives, and predominantly occurring to the extremities; these findings are similar to those of other studies conducted in combat zones. There is a need to establish a French Military trauma registry to improve the combat casualty care provided to French SMs, and its creation may benefit from the DoDTR model.

Pelvic Fracture Care.

While combat-related pelvis fractures are more commonly open, higher energy, and complex in pattern than those seen in the civilian setting, the principles of management are similar. The primary differences are related to the austere setting in which the initial management takes place, and the lack of resources typically available. Initial management consists of cessation of hemorrhage, along with the multi-disciplinary prioritized management of associated injuries, and skeletal stabilization. This is most commonly achieved with a compressive sheet or pelvic binder, with pelvic external fixation when resources allow, and debridement of open wounds as necessary. Definitive, internal fixation is delayed until the patient arrives at a higher echelon of care.

Emergency Resuscitative Thoracotomy in the Combat or Operational Environment.

Resuscitative thoracotomy has been extensively described in the civilian trauma literature and has a high mortality rate, due largely to the nature of the injuries leading to arrest. The survival rates are generally highest (10-30%) for penetrating truncal injuries and patients who arrive with vital signs and proceed to arrest or who have impending arrest. They are significantly lower (less than 5%) for blunt trauma victims, particularly those who arrest in the field or during transport (1% or less). In addition, the likelihood of survival with intact neurologic function is significantly lower than the overall survival rates, particularly for blunt trauma victims and for prehospital arrest.

Hyperkalemia and Dialysis in the Deployed Setting.

Acute kidney injury is a recognized complication of combat trauma. The complications associated with acute kidney injury, such as life-threatening hyperkalemia, are usually delayed in onset. In the recent conflicts, rapid evacuation of U.S. and coalition personnel generally resulted in these complications occurring at higher echelons of care where renal replacement therapies were available. In the future however, deployed providers may not have this luxury and should be prepared to temporize patients while they await transport. In this clinical practice guideline, recommendations are made for the management of patients with, or at risk for, acute kidney injury and hyperkalemia in the austere, deployed environment.

Amputation: Evaluation and Treatment.

Combat extremity injury and amputation is a life threatening injury. Initial surgical care should focus on hemostasis followed by irrigation and debridement of contaminated and nonviable tissue. Preservation of limb length begins at the initial surgical procedure, to include retention of atypical soft tissue flaps for later reconstruction and treatment of proximal fractures. Serial irrigation and debridements are required throughout the MEDEVAC system as the evolving zone of injury becomes more mature, followed by the appropriate timing of closure outside the combat theater.

High Bilateral Amputations and Dismounted Complex Blast Injury (DCBI).

High, combat-related bilateral lower extremity amputations rarely occur in isolation. Dismounted complex blast injury is a devastating and life-threatening constellation of multisystem injuries most commonly due to dismounted contact with improvised explosive devices. Rapid damage control resuscitation and surgery are essential to improve patient survival and minimize both early complications and late sequelae. A coordinated team approach is essential to provide simultaneous airway management, volume resuscitation (ideally with whole blood or ratio transfusion), and immediate control of life-threatening hemorrhage. Temporary aortic or iliac vessel clamping during concurrent exploratory or vascular control laparotomy is frequently required. Stabilization of unstable pelvic fractures is then performed, followed by debridement and irrigation of all wounds, which should be left open, and subsequent provisional stabilization of long bone fractures. The goal of the initial surgical resuscitative endeavor is rapid concurrent control of all sources of hemorrhage to avoid the lethal triad of acidosis, hypothermia and coagulopathy. To this end, multiple surgeons or surgical teams should be utilized whenever feasible. Patients then require ongoing resuscitation followed by early and frequent return to the operating suite throughout the evacuation chain. Utilizing this approach, a high survival rate with reasonable functional outcomes is achievable despite the extreme severity of the DCBI pattern.

Burn Casualty Care in the Deployed Setting.

Management of wartime burn casualties can be very challenging. Burns frequently occur in the setting of other blunt and penetrating injuries. This clinical practice guideline provides a manual for burn injury assessment, resuscitation, wound care, and specific scenarios including chemical and electrical injuries in the deployed or austere setting. The clinical practice guideline also reviews considerations for the definitive care of local national patients, including pediatric patients, who are unable to be evacuated from theater. Medical providers are encouraged to contact the US Army Institute of Surgical Research (USAISR) Burn Center when caring for a burn casualty in the deployed setting.

Catastrophic Non-Survivable Brain Injury Care-Role 2/3.

A catastrophic brain injury is defined as any brain injury that is expected to result in permanent loss of all brain function above the brain stem level. These clinical recommendations will help stabilize the patient so that they may be safely evacuated from theater. In addition to cardiovascular and hemodynamic goals, special attention must be paid to their endocrine dysfunction and its treatment-specifically steroid, insulin and thyroxin (t4) replacement while evaluating for and treating diabetes insipidus. Determining the futility of care coupled with resource management must also be made at each echelon. Logistical coordination and communication is paramount to expedite these patients to higher levels of care so that there is an increased probability of reuniting them with their family.

MRI in Management of Mild TBI/Concussion in the Deployed Setting.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has specific limitations in theater and has unique requirements for its safe use with patients which require additional technician training and strict adherence to MRI-specific safety protocols. Neuroimaging is recommended for the evaluation of service members with clinical red flags new onset or persistent or worsening symptoms, and individuals whose recovery is not progressing as anticipated. This article is a brief discussion of when MRI is appropriate.