• John Breeze, Richard J Blanch, Robb Mazzoli, Joseph DuBose, Douglas M Bowley, and David B Powers.
• Division of Plastic, Reconstructive, Maxillofacial & Oral Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom. Electronic address: johno.breeze@gmail.com.
• Ophthalmology. 2020 Apr 1; 127 (4): 458-466.

PurposeTo compare incidences, ocular injury types, and treatment performed on United States and United Kingdom military service members and host nation civilians within the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts to inform future military surgical training requirements and military medical planning. The United States routinely deployed ophthalmologists, whereas the United Kingdom did not.DesignRetrospective cohort study of the United States and United Kingdom military Joint Theatre Trauma Registries.ParticipantsAll patients with eye injuries treated at a deployed Military Treatment Facility between March 2003 and October 2011.MethodsAn adjusted multiple logistic regression model was performed using enucleation or evisceration and primary open-globe repair as dependent variables and casualty nationality, location, and the presence of an ophthalmic surgeon as independent variables.Main Outcome MeasuresIncidence of eye removal (enucleation or evisceration) or primary repair for open globe injury.ResultsFive thousand seven hundred nineteen of 67 586 (8%) survivors or those who died of wounds were recorded to have sustained eye injuries. The most common eye injuries were open-globe injury without intraocular foreign body (3201/5719 [56%]). Adnexal injuries (eyelid lacerations and damage to lacrimal apparatus) were recorded in 1265 of 5719 patients (22%). The odds of undergoing evisceration or enucleation for open-globe injury was highest in host nation civilians (odds ratio [OR], 9.23; P < 0.001), but there was no evidence of a difference between United States and United Kingdom military service member casualties (P = 0.38). The presence of an ophthalmic surgeon (OR, 16.3; P < 0.001) significantly affected the odds of eye removal.ConclusionsEye injuries were more likely to have been treated definitively in United States Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs), reflecting the absence of ophthalmologists in most deployed United Kingdom MTFs. The Iraq and Afghan conflicts were notable for coalition air dominance; the shape of future conflicts may mandate delays in evacuation, which may affect visual outcomes negatively, particularly if primary repair of patients with open-globe injuries is delayed. This study provides evidence to support the maintenance of specialist ophthalmic surgical competencies in deployed coalition MTFs for future conflicts.Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Ophthalmology. All rights reserved.

28 keywords...

hide…