Impact of injury mechanism on early wound closure in patients with acute conflict-related extremity wounds: A prospective cohort analysis from two civilian hospitals in Iraq and Jordan.

BACKGROUND: Gunshots and bomb blasts are important causes of extremity injuries in conflict zones, yet little research exists on the characteristics and outcomes of these injuries in civilian populations. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort analysis utilizing data from a randomized trial conducted at two civilian hospitals in Jordan and Iraq in 2015-2019. Adults who presented ≤72 h of sustaining an extremity injury were included. We used mechanism of injury (gunshot/bomb blast) as the exposure and wound closure by day 5 as the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: The population predominantly comprised young men (n = 163, 94% male, and median age 29 years) injured by gunshots (61%) or bomb blasts (39%). Compared with the gunshot group, more participants in the bomb blast group had concomitant injuries (32/63 [51%] vs. 11/100 [11%], p < 0.001) and vascular injuries (9/63 [14%] vs. 4/100 [4%], p = 0.02). The wounds were larger in the bomb blast group compared with the gunshot group (median area 86 cm2 [IQR 24-161] vs. 21 cm2 [IQR 7-57], p < 0.001). Compared with the bomb blast group, significantly more participants in the gunshot group achieved wound closure by day 5 (74/100 [74%] vs. 16/63 [25%], p < 0.001). This difference remained after controlling for confounding factors (odds ratio 4.7, 95% confidence interval 1.6-13.7). CONCLUSIONS: In civilians with conflict-related extremity injuries, bomb blast wounds had a lower likelihood of achieving closure within 5 days than gunshot wounds, independent of other factors, such as wound size and vascular injuries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02444598. Registered 14-05-2015, https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT02444598.

Exploratory laparotomy during the battle of Mosul, 2016-2017: results from a tertiary civilian hospital in Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan.

BACKGROUND: The Battle of Mosul (2016-2017) was an urban conflict resulting in over 9000 civilian deaths. Emergency Management Centre (EMC), located 90 km from Mosul, was designated as a civilian-run trauma centre as part of the novel Mosul Trauma Pathway. Patients necessitating exploratory laparotomy (ex-lap) provide a unique window into the system of care delivery in conflicts, given the importance of timely, resource-intensive care. However, there is insufficient knowledge regarding the presentation and outcomes for conflict-related ex-lap in civilian institutions. METHODS: This is a descriptive study retrospectively analyzing routinely collected data for all patients who underwent ex-lap at EMC for injuries sustained during the battle of Mosul. Differences in demographics, pre-hospital/hospital course, and New Injury Severity Scores (NISS) were analysed using student t-test, Hotelling T-squared, and linear regression. RESULTS: During the battle, 1832 patients with conflict-related injuries were admitted to EMC. Some 73/1832 (4.0%) underwent ex-lap, of whom 22/73 (30.1%) were children and 40/73 (54.8%) were non-combatant adults. Men constituted 51/73 (69%) patients. Gunshot wounds caused 19/73 (26.0%) injuries, while ordnances caused 52/73 (71.2%). Information regarding hospital course was available for 47/73 (64.4%) patients. Children had prolonged time from injury to first laparotomy compared to adults (600 vs 208 min, p < 0.05). Median LOS was 6 days (IQR 4-9.5); however, 11/47 (23%) patients left against medical advice. Post-operative complications occurred in 11/47 (23.4%) patients; 6/11 (54.5%) were surgical site infections. There were 12 (25.5%) patients who underwent relaparotomies after index surgery elsewhere; 10/12 (83.3%) were for failed repairs or missed injuries. Median NISS was 18 (IQR 12-27). NISS were significantly higher for women (vs men; 28.5 vs 19.8), children (vs adults; 28.8 vs 20), and relaparotomy patients (vs primary laparotomy patients; 32.0 vs 19.0). Some 3 patients died, 2 of whom were relaparotomies. CONCLUSION: At this civilian tertiary trauma centre, conflict-related exploratory laparotomies were associated with low morbidity and mortality. Long transport times, high rates of repeat laparotomies, and high numbers of patients leaving against medical advice raise questions regarding continuity of care along the Mosul Trauma Pathway. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered at Clinicaltrails.gov, ID NCT03490305, prior to collection of data.

Evaluation of anaplastic thyroid carcinoma in the Kurdistan region of Iraq.

BACKGROUND: Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma is a rare and lethal disease that accounts for 1-2% of thyroid malignancies. It is an aggressive locoregional disease with a high rate of distant metastasis, a poor prognosis, and a mean survival rate of 3-6 months after diagnosis. This retrospective study aimed to analyse the clinical and pathological features of ATC to assess treatment procedures and its outcome. METHODS: We analysed data from 22 patients diagnosed with ATC from 2018 to 2021, using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test to determine overall survival. RESULTS: Patients' median age was 64.3 ± 17.1 years. Females were more affected (male/female ratio: 1:1.7); 14 cases occurred in females (63.6.4%), and eight in males (36.4%). The most common manifestations were neck enlargement (81.8%) and dyspnoea (72.27%), and the tumour size was > 4 cm in 17 (77.3%) patients. The percentage of cases that presented in clinical-stage IVA was 36.4%, with 31.8% presenting in clinical-stage IVB and 31.8% presenting in clinical-stage VIB. Among 22 cases, 14 (63.6%) were operable, and 8 (36.4) were inoperable (p = 0.015). Multimodal therapies were associated with better survival (surgery plus radiotherapy without systemic treatment, P = 0.063). The median overall survival was three months (IC 95%, 0.078-5.922). One-year and two-year survival rates were 9% and 4.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: ATC is a rapidly growing cancer that, fortunately, is rare. Early diagnosis and multimodality treatment may provide a better quality of life and survival time for this group of patients.

Epidemiology of Trauma Patients from the Mosul Offensive, 2016-2017: Results from a Dedicated Trauma Center in Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan.

INTRODUCTION: Most epidemiological studies from conflicts are restricted to either combatants or civilians. It is largely unknown how the epidemiology differs between the two groups. In 2016, an Iraqi-led coalition began retaking Mosul from the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. One key institution that received trauma patients from Mosul was Emergency Management Center (EMC) in Erbil, 90 km away. The aim of this study was to describe the epidemiology, morbidity, and mortality of civilians and combatants admitted during the ongoing conflict. METHOD: This retrospective cohort study utilized routinely collected data on patients with conflict-related injuries who were admitted to EMC between October 16, 2016, and July 10, 2017. Data processing and analysis was carried out using JMP 13. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The analysis included 1725 patients, out of which 46% were civilian. Ordnance accounted for most injuries (68%), followed by firearms (18%) and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) (14%). The proportion of IED-related injuries among combatants were almost three times that of civilians. The proportions of abdominal injuries, need for surgery, laparotomies, and amputations were significantly higher among civilians than among combatants. The mortality rate was 0.5%. DISCUSSION: The fact that civilians had greater surgical needs than combatants may be explained by several factors including a lack of ballistic protection. The extremely low mortality rate indicates significant gaps in prehospital care and transport. Our results may provide useful information to guide medical preparedness and response during future conflicts. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV ID: NCT03358758.

Surgeons' Experience and Practices in Managing the Pilonidal Sinus in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

Background Despite pilonidal sinus disease being a prevalent issue, there are still many challenges and controversies regarding its management. This study aimed to evaluate the experiences and practices of surgeons in the Kurdistan region of Iraq in the management of the pilonidal sinus and determine the most preferred treatment method, recurrence rates, and other complications related to different treatment methods. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted on a convenience sample of 104 surgeons in the Kurdistan region of Iraq from January to February 2024 using an online survey based on Google Forms. A questionnaire was developed for data collection that included data on the experience and practice of pilonidal sinus treatment. Results The most common procedure followed by the study participants to manage the pilonidal sinus included primary open (n = 61/104, 58.7%), followed by primary closure (n = 20/104, 19.2%). The most common reasons or advantages for performing specific procedures to manage the pilonidal sinus were a lower recurrence rate (n = 73/104, 70.2%), safer procedures (n = 60/104, 57.7%), shorter operation times (n = 57/104, 54.8%), and shorter hospital stays (n = 53/104, 51.0%). The primary open method was the most commonly used method (n = 46/104, 44.3%), followed by simple incision and drainage (n = 25/104, 24.0%), primary closure (n = 23/104, 22.1%), and off-midline closure (n = 10/104, 9.6%). Most of the participants agreed that the primary open had the lowest recurrence rate (n = 68/104, 65.4%), while simple incision and drainage (n = 50/104, 48.1%) and primary closure (n = 29/104, 27.9%) were associated with frequent recurrence. Conclusions Standard treatment of pilonidal sinus disease is still not available. Most surgeons in the Kurdistan region of Iraq prefer the open method, which is the easiest, safest, and least recurrent yield method. However, it is the most painful and has the longest recovery time.

Cost analysis of negative-pressure wound therapy versus standard treatment of acute conflict-related extremity wounds within a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes after negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and standard treatment of conflict-related extremity wounds are similar. In resource-limited settings, cost affects the choice of treatment. We aimed to estimate treatment-related costs of NPWT in comparison with standard treatment for conflict-related extremity wounds. METHODS: We derived outcome data from a randomized, controlled superiority trial that enrolled adult (≥ 18 years) patients with acute (≤ 72 h) conflict-related extremity wounds at two civilian hospitals in Jordan and Iraq. Primary endpoint was mean treatment-related healthcare costs (adjusted to 2019 US dollars). RESULTS: Patients were enrolled from June 9, 2015, to October 24, 2018. A total of 165 patients (155 men [93.9%]; 10 women [6.1%]; and median [IQR] age, 28 [21-34] years) were included in the analysis. The cost per patient treated with NPWT was $142 above that of standard treatment. Overall, results were robust in a sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: With similar clinical outcomes compared to standard care, our results do not support the use of NPWT in routine treatment of conflict-related extremity wounds at civilian hospitals in resource scarce settings. Trial registration NCT02444598.

Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard treatment in patients with acute conflict-related extremity wounds: a pragmatic, multisite, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In armed conflict, injuries among civilians are usually complex and commonly affect the extremities. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is an alternative to standard treatment of acute conflict-related extremity wounds. We aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of NPWT with that of standard treatment. METHODS: In this pragmatic, randomised, controlled superiority trial done at two civilian hospitals in Jordan and Iraq, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older, presenting with a conflict-related extremity wound within 72 h after injury. Participants were assigned (1:1) to receive either NPWT or standard treatment. We used a predefined, computer-generated randomisation list with three block sizes. Participants and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was wound closure by day 5. The coprimary endpoint was net clinical benefit, defined as a composite of wound closure by day 5 and freedom from any bleeding, wound infection, sepsis, or amputation of the index limb. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02444598, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 9, 2015, and Oct 24, 2018, 174 patients were randomly assigned to either the NPWT group (n=88) or the standard treatment group (n=86). Five patients in the NPWT group and four in the standard treatment group were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. By day 5, 41 (49%) of 83 participants in the NPWT group and 49 (60%) of 82 participants in the standard treatment group had closed wounds, with an absolute difference of 10 percentage points (95% CI -5 to 25, p=0·212; risk ratio [RR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·62 to 1·09). Net clinical benefit was seen in 33 (41%) of 81 participants in the NPWT group and 34 (44%) of 78 participants in the standard treatment group, with an absolute difference of 3 percentage points (95% CI -12 to 18, p=0·750; RR 0·93, 95% CI 0·65 to 1·35). There was one in-hospital death in the standard treatment group and none in the NPWT group. The proportion of participants with sepsis, bleeding leading to blood transfusion, and limb amputation did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: NPWT did not yield superior clinical outcomes compared with standard treatment for acute conflict-related extremity wounds. The results of this study not only question the use of NPWT, but also question the tendency for new and costly treatments to be introduced into resource-limited conflict settings without supporting evidence for their effectiveness. This study shows that high-quality, randomised trials in challenging settings are possible, and our findings support the call for further research that will generate context-specific evidence. FUNDING: The Stockholm County Council, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, and Médecins Sans Frontières.

Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Standard Treatment of Adult Patients With Conflict-Related Extremity Wounds: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In armed conflict, injuries commonly affect the extremities and contamination with foreign material often increases the risk of infection. The use of negative-pressure wound therapy has been described in the treatment of acute conflict-related wounds, but reports are retrospective and with limited follow-up. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of negative-pressure wound therapy use in the treatment of patients with conflict-related extremity wounds. METHODS: This is a multisite, superiority, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. We are considering for inclusion patients 18 years of age and older who are presenting with a conflict-related extremity wound within 72 hours after injury. Patients are block randomly assigned to either negative-pressure wound therapy or standard treatment in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point is wound closure by day 5. Secondary end points include length of stay, wound infection, sepsis, wound complications, death, and health-related quality of life. We will explore economic outcomes, including direct health care costs and cost effectiveness, in a substudy. Data are collected at baseline and at each dressing change, and participants are followed for up to 3 months. We will base the primary statistical analysis on intention-to-treat. RESULTS: The trial is ongoing. Patient enrollment started in June 2015. We expect to publish findings from the trial by the end of 2019. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, there has been no randomized trial of negative-pressure wound therapy in this context. We expect that our findings will increase the knowledge to establish best-treatment strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02444598; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02444598 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/72hjI2XNX). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/12334.