Refocusing the Military Health System to Support Role 4 Definitive Care in future large-scale combat operations.

ABSTRACT: The last twenty years of sustained combat operations during the Global War on Terror generated significant advancements in combat casualty care. Improvements in point-of-injury, en route, and forward surgical care appropriately aligned with the survival, evacuation, and return to duty needs of the small-scale unconventional conflict. However, casualty numbers in large-scale combat operations have brought into focus the critical need for modernized casualty receiving and convalescence: Role 4 definitive care (R4DC). Historically, World War II was the most recent conflict in which the United States fought in multiple operational theaters, with hundreds of thousands of combat casualties returned to the continental United States. These numbers necessitated the establishment of a "Zone of the Interior" which integrated military and civilian healthcare networks for definitive treatment and rehabilitation of casualties. Current security threats demand refocusing and bolstering the Military Health System's definitive care capabilities to maximize its force regeneration capacity in a similar fashion. Medical force generation, medical force sustainment and readiness, and integrated casualty care capabilities are three pillars that must be developed for MHS readiness of Role 4 definitive care in future large-scale contingencies against near-peer/peer adversaries.

What Does the Military Health System Need to Support Future Combat Operations? Lessons from Aeromedical Evacuations from 2008 to 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Aeromedical evacuations from the past few decades have yielded massive amounts of data that may inform the Military Health System (MHS) on patient needs, specifically for understanding the inpatient and outpatient needs of evacuees. In this study, we evaluate inpatient and outpatient trends based on aeromedical evacuation data from recent conflicts. We anticipate that evacuations requiring MHS inpatient beds are primarily trauma-related and necessitate an increased need for inpatient trauma care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a descriptive analysis of aeromedical evacuations using the U.S. Transportation Command Regulating and Command & Control Evacuation System database. We queried the database for aeromedical evacuations originating from the U.S. EUCOM and ending in the CONUS, from January 1, 2008 to June 4, 2020. With the resultant data, evacuee demographics were characterized by gender, age, active duty (AD) versus non-AD, and branch of service. Following this, the proportion of battle injury to disease and non-battle injury was categorized by both patient age ranges and year. Additionally, evacuations were stratified by their ICD codes, as well as the primary specialty responsible for care. Lastly, evacuations were categorized by inpatient and outpatient care status. RESULTS: The final dataset yielded 32,485 unique patients. The majority of evacuees were male (86.9%) with a mean age of 29.0 ± 9.6 years. Evacuees were primarily AD Military (96.7%), with the majority of those personnel being in the Army (70.2%). The total number of evacuations steadily increased from 2008 (n = 3,703) until a peak in 2010 (n = 4,929), which was also the peak year for battle injury (n = 1,472). Battle injury was also most prevalent in the 21 to 24 age group (24.7%) and declined in older age groups. Regarding diagnoses, the leading categories were injury/poisoning (33.1%), psychiatric (28.1%), and musculoskeletal (12.1%). As for specialty care of evacuees, psychiatry received the largest share of total evacuations (28.1%), followed by orthopedic surgery (22.7%) and general surgery (8.6%). Looking at proportions of inpatient and outpatient care, the majority of evacuees required outpatient care (65.6%) with a sizable minority requiring inpatient care (34.4%). Inpatient evacuations peaked in 2010 (n = 2,013), accounting for 40.8% of all evacuations that year. Orthopedic surgery had the largest share of inpatient evacuations (27.3%), followed by psychiatry (21.5%) and general surgery (18.2%). As for outpatient care, the specialties with the largest proportion of outpatient evacuations were psychiatry (33.6%), orthopedic surgery (20.3%), and neurology (9.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study reveal what the MHS can expect in future conflicts. Most evacuations are for psychiatric-/injury-/musculoskeletal-related diagnoses, typically requiring care by psychiatrists, orthopedic surgeons, or general surgeons. Outpatient care is important, though it is critical to bolster inpatient care requirements as future conflicts may bring extensive numbers of inpatient casualties. The MHS should program and plan resources accordingly, planning for the care of surgical/injured and psychiatric patients.

Quality of Integration of Air Force Trauma Surgeons Within the Center for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills, Cincinnati: A Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: While previous studies have analyzed military surgeon experience within military-civilian partnerships (MCPs), there has never been an assessment of how well military providers are integrated within an MCP. The Center for Sustainment of Trauma and Readiness Skills, Cincinnati supports the Critical Care Air Transport Advanced Course and maintains the clinical skills of its staff by embedding them within the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. We hypothesized that military trauma surgeons are well integrated within University of Cincinnati Medical Center and that they are exposed to a similar range of complex surgical pathophysiology as their civilian partners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were abstracted from billing data for trauma surgeons covering University of Cincinnati Hospitals in 2019. The number of trauma resuscitations and patient acuity metrics were abstracted from the Trauma Registry and surgeon Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities clinical activity (KSA-CA) scores were calculated using their CPT codes. Finally, surgeon case distributions were studied by sorting their CPT codes into 23 categories based on procedure type and anatomic location. Appropriate, chi-squared or Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare these metrics between the military and civilian surgeon groups and the metrics were normalized by the group's full-time equivalent (FTE) to adjust for varying weeks on service between groups. RESULTS: Data were available for two active duty military and nine civilian staff. The FTEs were significantly lower in the military group: military 0.583-0.583 (median 0.583) vs. civilian 0.625-1.165 (median 1.0), P = 0.04. Per median FTE and surgeon number, both groups performed a similar number of trauma resuscitations (civilian 214 ± 54 vs. military 280 ± 13, P = 0.146) and KSA-CA points (civilian 55,629 ± 25,104 vs. military 36,286 ± 11,267; P = 0.582). Although the civilian surgeons had a higher proportion of hernia repairs (P < 0.001) and laparoscopic procedures (P = 0.006), the CPT code categories most relevant to combat surgery (those relating to solid organ, hollow viscus, cardiac, thoracic, abdominal, and tissue debridement procedures) were similar between the surgeon groups. Finally, patient acuity metrics were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: This is the first assessment of U.S. Air Force trauma surgeon integration relative to their civilian partners within an MCP. Normalized by FTE, there was no difference between the two groups' trauma experience to include patient acuity metrics and KSA-CA scores. The proportion of CPT codes that was most relevant to expeditionary surgery was similar between the military and civilian partners, thus optimizing the surgical experience for the military trauma surgeons within University of Cincinnati Medical Center. The methods used within this pilot study can be generalized to any American College of Surgeons verified Trauma Center MCP, as standard databases were used.

Disaster planning for a surgical surge: when mass trauma threatens to overwhelm your operating rooms.

Mass casualty events particularly those requiring multiple simultaneous operating rooms are of increasing concern. Existing literature predominantly focuses on mass casualty care in the emergency department. Hospital disaster plans should include a component focused on preparing for multiple simultaneous operations. When developing this plan, representatives from all segments of the perioperative team should be included. The plan needs to address activation, communication, physical space, staffing, equipment, blood and medications, disposition offloading, special populations, and rehearsal.

Are trauma surgeons prepared? A survey of trauma surgeons' disaster preparedness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: US trauma centers (TCs) must remain prepared for mass casualty incidents (MCIs). However, trauma surgeons may lack formal MCI training. The recent COVID-19 pandemic drove multiple patient surges, overloaded Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies, and stressed TCs. This survey assessed trauma surgeons' MCI training, experience, and system and personal preparedness before the pandemic compared with the pandemic's third year. Methods: Survey invitations were emailed to all 1544 members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma in 2019, and then resent in 2022 to 1575 members with additional questions regarding the pandemic. Questions assessed practice type, TC characteristics, training, experience, beliefs about personal and hospital preparedness, likelihood of MCI scenarios, interventions desired from membership organizations, and pandemic experiences. Results: The response rate was 16.7% in 2019 and 12% in 2022. In 2022, surgeons felt better prepared than their hospitals for pandemic care, mass shootings, and active shooters, but remained feeling less well prepared for cyberattack and hazardous material events, compared with 2019. Only 35% of the respondents had unintentional MCI response experience in 2019 or 2022, and even fewer had experience with intentional MCI. 78% had completed a Stop the Bleed (STB) course and 63% own an STB kit. 57% had engaged in family preparedness activities; less than 40% had a family action plan if they could not come home during an MCI. 100% of the respondents witnessed pandemic-related adverse events, including colleague and coworker illness, patient surges, and resource limitations, and 17% faced colleague or coworker death. Conclusions: Trauma surgeons thought that they became better at pandemic care and rated themselves as better prepared than their hospitals for MCI care, which is an opportunity for them to take greater leadership roles. Opportunities remain to improve surgeons' family and personal MCI preparedness. Surgeons' most desired professional organization interventions include advocacy, national standards for TC preparedness, and online training. Level of evidence: VII, survey of expert opinion.

Geospatial Assessment to Improve Time to Treatment (GAITT).

INTRODUCTION: Geographic information systems (GIS) can optimize trauma systems by identifying ways to reduce time to treatment. Using GIS, this study analyzed a system in Maryland served by Johns Hopkins Suburban Hospital and the University of Maryland Capital Region Medical Center. It was hypothesized that including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) in the Maryland trauma system in an access simulation would provide increased timely access for a portion of the local population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using ArcGIS Online, catchment areas with and without WRNMMC were built. Catchment areas captured Johns Hopkins Suburban Hospital, University of Maryland Capital Region Medical Center, and WRNMMC at 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, 30-, 45-, and 60-min. Various time conditions were simulated (12 am, 8 am, 12 pm, and 5 pm) on a weekday and weekend day. Data was enriched with 19 variables addressing population size, socioeconomic status, and diversity. RESULTS: All catchment areas benefited on at least one time-day simulation, but the largest increases in mean population coverage were in the 0-5 (10.5%), 5-10 (12.3%), and 10-15 min (5.7%) catchment areas. These areas benefited regardless of time-day simulation. The lowest increase in mean population coverage was seen in the 20-25-min catchment area (0.1%). Subgroup analysis revealed that all socioeconomic status and diversity groups gained coverage. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that incorporating WRNMMC into the Maryland trauma system might yield increased population coverage for timely trauma access. If incorporated, WRNMMC may provide nonstop or flexible coverage, possibly in different traffic scenarios or while civilian centers are on diversion status.

Brief Comparative Analysis of Trauma Care Specialties in Europe and the United States.

Understanding the variation in training and nuances of trauma provider practice between the countries in Europe and the United States is a daunting task. This article briefly reviews the key specialties of trauma care in Europe including emergency medical services (EMS), emergency medicine, anesthesia, trauma surgery, and critical care. The authors hope to inform U.S. military clinicians and medical planners of the major differences in emergency and trauma care that exist across Europe. Emergency medicine exists as both a primary specialty and a subspecialty across Europe, with varying stages of development as a specialty in each country. There is heavy physician involvement in EMS in much of Europe, with anesthesiologists having additional EMS training typically providing prehospital critical care. Because of the historical predominance of blunt trauma in Europe, in many countries, trauma surgery is a subspecialty with initial orthopedic surgery training versus general surgery. Intensive care medicine has various training pathways across Europe, but there have been great advances in standardizing competency requirements across the European Union. Finally, the authors suggest some strategies to mitigate the potential negative consequences of joint medical teams and how to leverage some key differences to advance life-saving medical interoperability across the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the trauma systems and informatics panel Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on the trauma care system recommended establishing a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded a study to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the trauma and burn care continuum. Panels were created to conduct a gap analysis and identify high-priority research questions. The National Trauma Research Action Plan panel reported here addressed trauma systems and informatics. METHODS: Experts were recruited to identify current gaps in trauma systems research, generate research questions, and establish the priorities using an iterative Delphi survey approach from November 2019 through August 2020. Panelists were identified to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability, including military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: patient/population, intervention, compare/control, and outcome. In subsequent surveys, panelists prioritized each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized as low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% agreement. RESULTS: Twenty-seven subject matter experts generated 570 research questions, of which 427 (75%) achieved the consensus threshold. Of the consensus reaching questions, 209 (49%) were rated high priority, 213 (50%) medium priority, and 5 (1%) low priority. Gaps in understanding the broad array of interventions were identified, including those related to health care infrastructure, technology products, education/training, resuscitation, and operative intervention. The prehospital phase of care was highlighted as an area needing focused research. CONCLUSION: This Delphi gap analysis of trauma systems and informatics research identified high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators and funding agencies in setting research priorities to continue to work toward Zero Preventable Deaths after trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Dunning-Kruger Effect Between Self-Peer Ratings of Surgical Performance During a MASCAL Event and Pre-Event Assessed Trauma Procedural Capabilities.

Objectives: The research question asked to what extent do self-rated performance scores of individual surgeons correspond to assessed procedural performance abilities and to peer ratings of procedural performance during a mass casualty (MASCAL) event? Background: Self-assessment using performance rating scales is ubiquitous in surgical education as a proxy for direct measurement of competence. The validity and reliability of self-ratings as competency measures are susceptible to cognitive biases such as Dunning-Kruger effects, which describe how individuals over/underestimate their own performance compared to assessments from independent sources. The ability of surgeons to accurately self-assess their procedural performance remains undetermined. Methods: A purposive sample of military surgeons (N = 13) who collectively cared for trauma patients during a MASCAL event participated in the study. Pre-event performance assessment scores for 32 trauma procedures were compared with post-event self and peer performance ratings using F tests (P < 0.05) and effect sizes (Cohen's d). Results: There were no significant differences between peer ratings and performance assessment scores. There were significant differences between self-ratings and both peer ratings (P < 0.001) and performance assessment scores (P < 0.001). Effect sizes were very large for self to peer rating comparison (Cohen's d = 2.34) and self to performance assessment comparison (Cohen's d = 2.77). Conclusions: The outcomes demonstrate that self-ratings were significantly lower than the independently determined assessment scores for each surgeon, revealing a Dunning-Kruger effect for highly skilled individuals underestimating their abilities. These outcomes underscore the limitations of self-assessment for measuring competence.

Analysis of Surgical Volume in Military Medical Treatment Facilities and Clinical Combat Readiness of US Military Surgeons.

Importance: Low surgical volume in the US Military Health System (MHS) has been identified as a challenge to military surgeon readiness. The Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, in partnership with the American College of Surgeons, developed the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSA) Clinical Readiness Program that includes a tool for quantifying the clinical readiness value of surgeon workload, known as the KSA metric. Objective: To describe changes in US military general surgeon procedural volume and readiness using the KSA metric. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed general surgery workload performed across the MHS, including military and civilian facilities, between fiscal year 2015 and 2019 and the calculated KSA metric value. The surgeon-level readiness among military general surgeons was calculated based on the KSA metric readiness threshold. Data were obtained from TRICARE, the US Department of Defense health insurance product. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were general surgery procedural volumes and the KSA metric point value of those procedures across the MHS as well as the number of military general surgeons meeting the KSA metric readiness threshold. Aggregate facility and regional market-level claims data were used to calculate the procedural volumes and KSA metric readiness value of those procedures. Annual adjusted KSA metric points earned were used to determine the number of individual US military general surgeons meeting the readiness threshold. Results: The number of general surgery procedures generating KSAs in military hospitals decreased 25.6%, from 128 377 in 2015 to 95 461 in 2019, with a 19.1% decrease in the number of general surgeon KSA points (from 7 155 563 to 5 790 001). From 2015 to 2019, there was a 3.2% increase in both the number of procedures (from 419 980 to 433 495) and KSA points (from 21 071 033 to 21 748 984) in civilian care settings. The proportion of military general surgeons meeting the KSA metric readiness threshold decreased from 16.7% (n = 97) in 2015 to 10.1% (n = 68) in 2019. Conclusions and Relevance: This study noted that the number of KSA metric points and procedural volume in military hospitals has been decreasing since 2015, whereas both measures have increased in civilian facilities. The findings suggest that loss of surgical workload has resulted in further decreases in military surgeon readiness and may require substantial changes in patient care flow in the MHS to reverse the change.

There Is No Role for Damage Control Orthopedics Within the Golden Hour.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma systems within the United States have adapted the "golden hour" principle to guide prehospital planning with the goal to deliver the injured to the trauma facility in under 60 minutes. In an effort to reduce preventable prehospital death, in 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates mandated that prehospital transport of injured combat casualties must be less than 60 minutes. The U.S. Military has implemented a 60-minute timeline for the transport of battlefield causalities to medical teams to include Forward Surgical Teams and Forward Resuscitative Surgical Teams. The inclusion of orthopedic surgeons on Forward Surgical Teams has been extrapolated from the concept of damage control orthopedics (DCO). However, it is not clear if orthopedic surgeons have yielded a demonstrable benefit in morbidity or mortality reduction. The purpose of this article is to investigate the function of orthopedic surgeons during the military "golden hour." MATERIALS AND METHODS: The English literature was reviewed for evidence supporting the use of orthopedic surgeons within the golden hour. Literature was reviewed in light of the 2009 golden hour mandate by Secretary Gates as well as those papers which highlighted the utility of DCO within the golden hour. RESULTS: Evidence for orthopedic surgery within the "golden hour" or in the current conflicts when the United States enjoys air superiority was not identified. CONCLUSIONS: Within the military context, DCO, specifically pertaining to fracture fixation, should not be considered an element of golden hour planning and thus orthopedic surgeons are best utilized at more centralized Role 3 facility locations. The focus within the first hour after injury on the battlefield should be maintained on rapid and effective prehospital care combined with timely evacuation, as these are the most critical factors to reducing mortality.

Ultramobile Surgical Set for Austere Damage Control Surgery.

The authors describe an equipment list for an ultramobile, surgeon-carried equipment set that is specifically designed for missions that require the extremes of constraints on personnel and resources conducted outside the ring of golden hour access to damage control surgery (DCS) capabilities.

A Novel Paradigm for Surgical Skills Training and Assessment of Competency.

Importance: Sustainment of comprehensive procedural skills in trauma surgery is a particular problem for surgeons in rural, global, and combat settings. Trauma care often requires open surgical procedures for low-frequency/high-risk injuries at a time when open surgical experience is declining in general and trauma surgery training. Objective: To determine whether general surgeons participating in a 2-day standardized trauma skills course demonstrate measurable improvement in accuracy and independent performance of specific trauma skills. Design, Setting, and Participants: General surgeons in active surgical practice were enrolled from a simulation center with anatomic laboratory from October 2019 to October 2020. Differences in pretraining/training and posttraining performance outcomes were examined using (1) pretraining/posttraining surveys, (2) pretraining/posttraining knowledge assessment, and (3) training/posttraining faculty assessment. Analysis took place in November 2020. Interventions: A 2-day standardized, immersive, cadaver-based skills course, developed with best practices in instructional design, that teaches and assesses 24 trauma surgical procedures was used. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trauma surgery capability, as measured by confidence, knowledge, abilities, and independent performance of specific trauma surgical procedures; 3-month posttraining skill transfer. Results: The study cohort included 65 active-duty general surgeons, of which 16 (25%) were women and 49 (75%) were men. The mean (SD) age was 38.5 (4.2) years. Before and during training, 1 of 65 participants (1%) were able to accurately perform all 24 procedures without guidance. After course training, 64 participants (99%) met the benchmark performance requirements for the 24 trauma procedures, and 51 (78%) were able to perform them without guidance. Procedural confidence and knowledge increased significantly from before to after the course. At 3 months after training, 37 participants (56%) reported skill transfer to trauma or other procedures. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, direct measurement of procedural performance following standardized training demonstrated significant improvement in skill performance in a broad array of trauma procedures. This model may be useful for assessment of procedural competence in other specialties.

COVID-19: Opportunity to Re-Imagine Our Response to a National Medical Crisis.

The US is facing the most significant health challenge since the 1918-1919 flu pandemic. A response commensurate with this challenge requires engaged leadership and organization across private and public sectors that span federal agencies, public and private healthcare systems, professional organizations, and industry. In the trauma and emergency care communities, we have long discussed the tension between competition in healthcare and the need for regional cooperation to respond to large-scale disasters. The response to COVID-19 has required unprecedented coordination of private and public sector entities. Given the competitive nature of the US health system, these sectors do not regularly work together despite the requirement to do so during a national emergency. This crisis has exposed how structural aspects of the present healthcare system have limited our ability to rapidly transition to a whole-nation response during a national crisis. We propose a renewed focus on the intersection of the healthcare system and national security, with the express goal of creating a public-private partnership focused on leveraging our healthcare infrastructure to support the national security interests of the US.

Removal of the Prehospital Tourniquet in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Life-threatening hemorrhage from extremity injuries can be effectively controlled in the prehospital environment through direct pressure, wound packing, and the use of tourniquets. Early tourniquet application has been prioritized for rapid control of severe extremity hemorrhage and is a cornerstone of prehospital trauma resuscitation guidelines. Emergency physicians must be knowledgeable regarding the initial assessment and appropriate management of patients who present with a prehospital tourniquet in place. DISCUSSION: An interdisciplinary group of experts including emergency physicians, trauma surgeons, and tactical and Emergency Medical Services physicians collaborated to develop a stepwise approach to the assessment and removal (discontinuation) of an extremity tourniquet in the emergency department after being placed in the prehospital setting. We have developed a best-practices guideline to serve as a resource to aid the emergency physician in how to safely remove a tourniquet. The guideline contains five steps that include: 1) Determine how long the tourniquet has been in place; 2) Evaluate for contraindications to tourniquet removal; 3) Prepare for tourniquet removal; 4) Release the tourniquet; and 5) Monitor and reassess the patient. CONCLUSION: These steps outlined will help emergency medicine clinicians appropriately evaluate and manage patients presenting with tourniquets in place. Tourniquet removal should be performed in a systematic manner with plans in place to immediately address complications.

Management and outcome of 597 wartime penetrating lower extremity arterial injuries from an international military cohort.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular injury is a leading cause of death and disability in military and civilian settings. Most wartime and an increasing amount of civilian vascular trauma arises from penetrating mechanisms of injury due to gunshot or explosion. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive examination of penetrating lower extremity arterial injury and to characterize long-term limb salvage and differences related to mechanisms of injury. METHODS: The military trauma registries of the United States and the United Kingdom were analyzed to identify service members who sustained penetrating lower limb arterial injury (2001-2014). Treatment and limb salvage data were studied and comparisons made of patients whose penetrating vascular trauma arose from explosion (group 1) vs gunshot (group 2). Standardized statistical testing was used, with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 568 combat casualties (mean age, 25.2 years) with 597 injuries (explosion, n = 416; gunshot, n = 181). Group 1 had higher Injury Severity Score (P < .05) and Mangled Extremity Severity Score (P < .0001), required more blood transfusion (P < .05), and had more tibial (P < .01) and popliteal (P < .05) arterial injuries; group 2 had more profunda femoris injuries (P < .05). Initial surgical management for the whole cohort included vein interposition graft (33%), ligation (31%), primary repair with or without patch angioplasty (16%), temporary vascular shunting (15%), and primary amputation (6%). No difference in patency of arterial reconstruction was found between group 1 and group 2, although group 1 had a higher incidence of primary (13% vs 2%; P < .05) and secondary (19% vs 9%; P < .05) amputation. Similarly, longer term freedom from amputation was lower for group 1 than for group 2 (68% vs 89% at 5.5 years; Cox hazard ratio, 0.30; P < .0001), as was physical functioning (36-Item Short Form Health Survey data; mean, 39.80 vs 43.20; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of wartime lower extremity arterial injuries result from an explosive mechanism that preferentially affects the tibial vasculature and results in poorer long-term limb salvage compared with those injured with firearms. The mortality associated with immediate limb salvage attempts is low, and delayed amputations occur weeks later, affording the patient involvement in the decision-making and rehabilitation planning. We recommend assertive attempts at vascular repair and limb salvage for service members injured by explosive and gunshot mechanisms.

Combat vascular injury: Influence of mechanism of injury on outcome.

BACKGROUND: Haemorrhage is the leading cause of death on the battlefield. Seventy percent of injuries are due to explosive mechanisms. Anecdotally, these patients have had poorer outcomes when compared to those with penetrating mechanisms of injury (MOI). We wished to test the hypothesis that outcomes following vascular reconstruction were worse in blast-injured than non blast-injured patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. British and American combat casualties with arterial injuries sustained in Iraq or Afghanistan (2003-2014) were identified from the UK Joint Theatre Trauma Registry (JTTR). Eligibility included explosive or penetrating MOI, with follow-up to UK hospital discharge, or death. Outcomes were mortality, amputation, graft thrombosis, haemorrhage, and infection. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson Chi-Square test, t-tests, ANOVA or non-parametric equivalent, and survival analyses. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen patients were included, 80 injured by explosive and 35 by penetrating mechanisms. Evacuation time, ISS, number of arterial injuries, age and gender were comparable between groups. Seventy percent of arterial injuries resulted from an explosive MOI. The explosive injuries group received more blood products (p = 0.008) and suffered more regions injured (p < 0.0001). Early surgical interventions in both were ligation (n = 36, 31%), vein graft (n = 33, 29%) and shunting (n = 9, 8%). Mortality (n = 12, 10%) was similar between groups. Differences in limb salvage rates following explosive (n = 17, 53%) vs penetrating (n = 13, 76.47%) mechanisms approached statistical significance (p = 0.056). Nine (28%) vein grafted patients developed complications. No evidence of a difference in the incidence of vein graft thrombosis was found when comparing explosive with non-explosive cohorts (p = 0.154). CONCLUSIONS: The recorded numbers of vein grafts following combat arterial trauma in are small in the JTTR. No statistically-significant differences in complications, including vein graft thrombosis, were found between cohorts injured by explosive and non-explosive mechanisms.