Review of military and civilian trauma registries: Does consensus matter?

BACKGROUND: Structural collection of data from combat injuries is important to improve provided care and the outcome of (combat) casualties. Trauma registries are used in civilian and military health care systems for systematic administration of injury data. However, these registries often use different methods of data management, compromising international comparison of trauma systems. The aim of this review is to aid in reaching international (coalition-wide) consensus for compatible data collection methods with uniform definitions, which is needed for transnational research and subsequent improvement of medical support organizations. METHODS: In this descriptive review, we analyzed different data sets from trauma systems within the American-European context, and included data variables from civilian and military trauma registries. These data sets were analyzed to identify a core set of variables fundamental to describing the tactical context, epidemiology, injury mechanism, injury severity, key treatment, and outcome. RESULTS: A total of 1,672 unique variables, of which 536 military specific, were identified and divided in 11 elemental categories of medical care (patient info, incident info, injury diagnoses, prehospital care, emergency department, imaging, surgical treatment, intensive care, ward, discharge and outcome) and three military-specific categories (forward medical evacuation, prehospital medical treatment facility, and discharge out of theater). A total of 203 key variables were identified and considered fundamental for effective (military) trauma research. CONCLUSION: Well-established and reliable trauma registries and databases are fundamental in (military) trauma care. We recommend implementation of a (concurrent) UN/NATO wide registry system with a track and follow-up system to further improve the quality of care and registration of casualties. Further research should focus on real time aids available on the battlefield and direct storage/upload in trauma databases in theater. Ultimately, sound and valid data support medical decision process and evaluation necessary to save lives on the battlefield.

Amputation: Not a failure for severe lower extremity combat injury.

INTRODUCTION: The use of improvised explosive devices is a frequent method of insurgents to inflict harm on deployed military personnel. Consequently, lower extremity injuries make up the majority of combat related trauma. The wounding pattern of an explosion is not often encountered in a civilian population and can lead to substantial disability. It is therefore important to study the impact of these lower extremity injuries and their treatment (limb salvage versus amputation) on functional outcome and quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All Dutch repatriated service members receiving treatment for wounds on the lower extremity sustained in the Afghan theater between august 2005 and August 2014, were invited to participate in this observational cohort study. We conducted a survey regarding their physical and mental health using the Short Form health survey 36, EuroQoL 6 dimensions and Lower Extremity Functional Scale questionnaires. Results were collated in a specifically designed electronic database combined with epidemiology and hospital statistics gathered from the archive of the Central Military Hospital. Statistical analyses were performed to identify differences between combat and non-combat related injuries and between limb salvage treatment and amputation. RESULTS: In comparison with non-battle injury patients, battle casualties were significantly younger of age, sustained more severe injuries, needed more frequent operations and clinical rehabilitation. Their long-term outcome scores in areas concerning well-being, social and cognitive functioning, were significantly lower. Regarding treatment, amputees experienced higher physical well-being and less pain compared to those treated with limb salvage surgery. CONCLUSION: Sustaining a combat injury to the lower extremity can lead to partial or permanent dysfunction. However, wounded service members, amputees included, are able to achieve high levels of activity and participation in society, proving a remarkable resilience. These long-term results demonstrate that amputation is not a failure for casualty and surgeon, and strengthen a life before limb (damage control surgery) mindset in the initial phase. For future research, we recommend the use of adequate coding and injury scoring systems to predict outcome and give insight in the attributes that are supportive for the resilience that is needed to cope with a serious battle injury.

Impact of explosive devices in modern armed conflicts: in-depth analysis of Dutch battle casualties in southern Afghanistan.

BACKGROUND: The patterns and mechanisms of injuries of all Dutch battle casualties (BCs) were analyzed to improve the care for injured service members. We performed an in-depth analysis of all Dutch BCs during the participation of The Netherlands as lead nation in the International Security Assistance Force mission in southern Afghanistan. METHODS: Participants were selected from the trauma registry at the Dutch Role 2 Medical Treatment Facility if they met the criteria for Dutch BC between August 2006 and August 2010. RESULTS: The trauma registry query resulted in 199 Dutch BCs. The battle injuries were predominantly caused by explosions (83.9 %). The case-fatality rate was 9.5 %: 16.5 % were killed in action, and 1.1 % died of wounds. The wounding pattern was as follows: head and neck (32.2 %), thorax (7.8 %), abdomen (12.7 %), upper extremity (17.6 %), lower extremity (29.7 %). The mean Abbreviated Injury Scale and Injury Severity Score were 3 (range 0-5) and 11 (range 1-43), respectively in the wounded-in-action group. CONCLUSIONS: Explosive devices accounted for almost 85 % of the casualties-much higher than in previous wars. Knowledge of the management of these injuries is also valuable in treating casualties from natural disasters or (terrorist) mass casualty situations. An integral multinational joint approach is highly recommended to develop more effective protective equipment and body armor. Prospective registration in a standardized system of data collection that encompasses all echelons of the medical support organization should be implemented.