4.3 Article

No neurochemical evidence of brain injury after blast overpressure by repeated explosions or firing heavy weapons

Journal

ACTA NEUROLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 123, Issue 4, Pages 245-251

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2010.01408.x

Keywords

biomarkers; blast injury; cerebrospinal fluid; neurofilament protein; tau protein; traumatic brain injury; war injury

Funding

  1. Swedish Armed Forces
  2. Sahlgrenska University Hospital
  3. University of Gothenburg

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background - Psychiatric and neurological symptoms are common among soldiers exposed to blast without suffering a direct head injury. It is not known whether such symptoms are direct consequences of blast overpressure. Objective - To examine if repeated detonating explosions or firing if of heavy weapons is associated with neurochemical evidence of brain damage. Materials and methods - Three controlled experimental studies. In the first, army officers were exposed to repeated firing of a FH77B howitzer or a bazooka. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was taken post-exposure to measure biomarkers for brain damage. In the second, officers were exposed for up to 150 blasts by firing a bazooka, and in the third to 100 charges of detonating explosives of 180 dB. Serial serum samples were taken after exposure. Results were compared with a control group consisting of 19 unexposed age-matched healthy volunteers. Results - The CSF biomarkers for neuronal/axonal damage (tau and neurofilament protein), glial cell injury (GFAP and S-100b), blood-brain barrier damage (CSF/serum albumin ratio) and hemorrhages (hemoglobin and bilirubin) and the serum GFAP and S-100b showed normal and stable levels in all exposed officers. Discussion - Repeated exposure to high-impact blast does not result in any neurochemical evidence of brain damage. These findings are of importance for soldiers regularly exposed to high-impact blast when firing artillery shells or other types of heavy weapons.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available