4.7 Article

Incidence of Primary Blast Injury in US Military Overseas Contingency Operations A Retrospective Study

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 251, 期 6, 页码 1140-1144

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e01270

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. US Army Medical Research and Material Command

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The present retrospective study was performed to determine the incidence and outcome of primary blast injury and to identify possible changes over the course of the conflicts between 2003 and 2006. Summary Background Data: Combat physicians treating patients injured in overseas contingency operations observed an increase in the severity of explosion injuries occurring during this period. Methods: This retrospective study included service members injured in explosions between March 2003 and October 2006. The Joint Theater Trauma Registry provided demographic information, injury severity score, and International Classification of Diseases 9 codes used to diagnose primary blast injury. Autopsy reports of the last 497 combat-related deaths of 2006 were also reviewed. Results: Of 9693 admissions, of which 6687 were injured in combat, 4765 (49%) were injured by explosions: 2588 in 2003-2004 and 1935 in 2005-2006. Dates of injury were unavailable for 242 casualties. Injury severity score (9 +/- 10 vs. 11 +/- 10, P < 0.0001) and incidence of primary blast injury (12% vs. 15%, P < 0.01) increased. The return-to-duty rate decreased (40% vs. 18%, P < 0.001), but mortality remained low (1.4% vs. 1.5%, P = NS). There was no significant difference in incidence of primary blast injury between personnel who were killed in action and those who died of wounds at a medical facility. Conclusions: Injury severity and incidence of primary blast injury increased during the 4-year period, whereas return-to-duty rates decreased. Despite increasingly devastating injuries, the mortality rate due to explosion injuries remained low and unchanged.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据