Neurosurgical workload during US combat operations: 2002 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 4.5% of surgical procedures performed at Role 2 (R2) (forward surgical) and Role 3 (R3) (theater) medical treatment facilities can be classified as neurosurgical. These procedures are foreign to the routine daily practice of the military general surgeon. The purpose of this study was to examine the neurosurgical workload in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to inform the future predeployment neurosurgical training needs of nonneurosurgical providers. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the Department of Defense Trauma Registry for all R2 and R3 medical facilities, from January 2002 to May 2016. The 103 neurosurgical International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes identified were grouped by anatomic location. Select groups were further subdivided. Data analysis used Stata version 14 (College Station, TX). RESULTS: A total of 7,509 neurosurgical procedures were identified. The majority (7,244 [96.5%]) occurred at R3 theater hospitals. Cranial procedures were the most common at both R2 (120, 45.3%) and R3 (4,483 [61.9%]), with craniotomy/craniectomy the most frequent procedure. Spine procedures were performed almost exclusively at R3, with 61.1% being fusions/stabilizations and 26.9% being spinal decompression alone. Neurosurgical caseload was variable over the 15-year study period, dropping to almost zero in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Neurosurgical procedures were performed primarily at larger R3 theater hospitals where neurosurgeons were assigned if present in theater; however, more than 100 cranial procedures were performed at forward R2 where neurosurgeons were not deployed. Considering that neurosurgeons are not everywhere available within the war zone, deploying general surgeons should have familiarity with trauma neurosurgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III; Care Management, level IV.

Vascular surgery during U.S. combat operations from 2002 to 2016: Analysis of vascular procedures performed to inform military training.

BACKGROUND: Vascular surgery constitutes approximately 6.5% of surgical procedures performed for combat injuries, yet general surgeons are increasingly unfamiliar with vascular surgery. This study examines the frequency and type of vascular surgical procedures performed during recent US Military operations from 2002 to 2016. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Department of Defense Trauma Registry was performed for all Role (R)2 and R3 medical treatment facilities (MTFs), from January 2002 to May 2016. A total of 106 International Classification of Diseases-9th Rev.-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) procedure codes were categorized as vascular and were included in the present analysis. Procedure codes were separated by anatomic location and procedure type. Ligation as part of an amputation was excluded. Grafts were further subdivided by type: synthetic, autologous, and unknown. Procedure grouping and categorization were determined by subject matter experts. Data analysis used Stata Version 14 (College Station, TX). RESULTS: A total of 25,816 vascular surgical procedures were identified at R2 and R3 MTFs. Role 3 MTFs reported more than four times the number of procedures compared to R2 MTFs. The most common anatomic locations documented were extremity (64.96%) and not otherwise specified (28.1%). The most common procedures overall were amputation (33.36%) and fasciotomy (18.83%). The most common graft type was autologous (68.87%), and the least common was synthetic (5.69%). CONCLUSION: While amputation, fasciotomy, and ligation were the most common vascular procedures performed for combat trauma, the need for definitive repair including grafting is common at both R2 and R3 MTFs. Vascular surgery therefore remains a necessary skill set for the deployed US Military surgeon; military general surgeons need to train and sustain their vascular skills, including proficiency at amputation and fasciotomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.

Abdominal trauma surgery during recent US combat operations from 2002 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal surgery constitutes approximately 13% of surgical procedures performed for combat injuries. This study examines the frequencies and type of abdominal surgical procedures performed during recent US Military operations. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Department of Defense Trauma Registry was performed for all Role 2 (R2) and Role 3 (R3) medical treatment facilities (MTFs), from January 2002 to May 2016. The 273 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes that were identified as abdominal surgical procedures were stratified into 24 groups based on anatomic and functional classifications and then grouped by whether they were laparoscopic. Procedure grouping and categorization were determined, and adjudicated if necessary, by subject matter experts. Data analysis used Stata version 14 (College Station, TX). RESULTS: A total of 26,548 abdominal surgical procedures were identified at R2 and R3 MTFs. The majority of abdominal surgical procedures were reported at R3 facilities. The largest procedure group at both R2 and R3 MTFs were procedures involving the bowel. There were 18 laparoscopic procedures reported (R2: 4 procedures, R3: 14 procedures). Laparotomy not otherwise specified was the second largest procedure group at both R2 (1,060 [24.55%]) and R3 (4,935 [22.2%]) MTFs. Abdominal caseload was variable over the 15-year study period. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical skills such as open laparotomy and procedures involving the bowel are crucial in war surgery. The abundance of laparotomy not otherwise specified may reflect inadequate documentation, or the plethora of second- and third-look operations and washouts performed for complex abdominal injuries. Traditional elective general surgical cases (gallbladder, hernia) were relatively infrequent. Laparoscopy was almost nonexistent. Open abdominal surgical skills therefore remain a necessity for the deployed US Military General Surgeons; this is at odds with the shifting paradigm from open to laparoscopic skills in stateside civilian and military hospitals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.

Combat surgical workload in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom: The definitive analysis.

BACKGROUND: Relatively few publications exist on surgical workload in the deployed military setting. This study analyzes US military combat surgical workload in Iraq and Afghanistan to gain a more thorough understanding of surgical training gaps and personnel requirements. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Department of Defense Trauma Registry was performed for all Role 2 (R2) and Role 3 (R3) military treatment facilities from January 2001 to May 2016. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes were grouped into 18 categories based on functional surgical skill sets. The 189,167 surgical procedures identified were stratified by role of care, month, and year. Percentiles were calculated for the number of procedures for each skill set. A literature search was performed for publications documenting combat surgical workload during the same period. RESULTS: A total of 23,548 surgical procedures were performed at R2 facilities, while 165,619 surgical procedures were performed at R3 facilities. The most common surgical procedures performed overall were soft tissue (37.5%), orthopedic (13.84%), abdominal (13.01%), and vascular (6.53%). The least common surgical procedures performed overall were cardiac (0.23%), peripheral nervous system (0.53%), and spine (0.34%).Mean surgical workload at any point in time clearly underrepresented those units in highly kinetic areas, at times by an order of magnitude or more. The published literature always demonstrated workloads well in excess of the 50th percentile for the relevant time period. CONCLUSIONS: The published literature on combat surgical workload represents the high end of the spectrum of deployed surgical experience. These trends in surgical workload provide vital information that can be used to determine the manpower needs of future conflicts in ever-changing operational tempo environments. Our findings provide surgical types and surgical workload requirements that will be useful in surgical training and placement of medical assets in future conflicts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III; Care management, level III.

Economic Burden of Hearing Loss for the U.S. Military: A Proposed Framework for Estimation.

The goal of this multiphased research is to develop methods to comprehensively determine the economic impact of hearing impairment and noise-induced hearing injury among active duty U.S. Service Members. Several steps were undertaken to develop a framework and model for economic burden analysis: (1) a literature review identifying studies reporting the cost of health conditions and injuries in the Department of Defense, (2) consultation with a panel of subject matter experts who reviewed these cost items, and (3) discussions with DoD data stewards and review of relevant data dictionaries and databases. A Markov model was developed to represent the cumulative economic effect of events along the career span, such as retraining after hearing impairment and injury, by synthesizing inputs from various sources. The model, as developed and proposed in this study, will be a valuable decision-making tool for the DoD to identify high-risk groups, take proactive measures, and develop focused education, customized equipping, and return-to-duty and reintegration programs, thereby maximizing the retention of skilled, experienced, and mission-ready Service Members.

The impact of hearing impairment and noise-induced hearing injury on quality of life in the active-duty military population: challenges to the study of this issue.

The objectives of this research were to 1) summarize the available evidence on the impact of hearing loss on quality of life (QOL) among U.S. active-duty service members, 2) describe the QOL instruments that have been used to quantify the impact of hearing loss on quality of life, 3) examine national population-level secondary databases and report on their utility for studying the impact of hearing loss on QOL among active-duty service members, and 4) provide recommendations for future studies that seek to quantify the impact of hearing loss in this population. There is a lack of literature that addresses the intersection of hearing impairment, the military population, and quality of life measures. For audiological research, U.S. military personnel offer a unique research population, as they are exposed to noise levels and blast environments that are highly unusual in civilian work settings and can serve as a model population for studying the impact on QOL associated with these conditions. Our team recommends conducting a study on the active-duty service member population using a measurement instrument suitable for determining decreases in QOL specifically due to hearing loss.