• Michael S Truitt, Van Johnson, Manuel Rivera, Alicia Mangram, Manuel Lorenzo, and Ernest Dunn.
• Department of Surgery, Methodist Health System, Dallas, Texas 75208, USA. Mike_Truitt@Hotmail.com
• Am Surg. 2011 Jan 1;77(1):19-21.

AbstractThe management of trauma patients continues to be a major focus of resident training. The purpose of this review is to compare the mechanism and distribution of injuries in civilian and military trauma and to ascertain whether we are optimally preparing surgeons for the injuries seen on the battlefield. We performed a retrospective 5-year review of all trauma admissions to our urban trauma center (TC). We then compared this data with that recently acquired from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). There were 7732 trauma patients seen during that time at our TC with 9.8 per cent sustaining gunshot wounds. Of those, 26 per cent sustained a gunshot wound to the thorax, and injuries to the abdomen and pelvis were sustained in 28.5 per cent. In total, truncal trauma accounted for 55 per cent of the injuries. Extremity injuries occurred in just 31 per cent. Data from OIF show the mechanism and distribution of injuries to be quite different. Improvised explosive devices accounted for greater than 50 per cent of the injuries in OIF. Truncal injuries accounted for just 14 per cent of the injuries seen and extremity injuries accounted for, a significant, 56 per cent of all the injuries observed. The civilian experience with gunshot wounds often focuses on truncal trauma, yet the military data show a need for knowledge of devastating injuries to the extremity. This divergent experience may be even more salient in the future as the battlefield is brought closer to home through domestic terrorism and the line is blurred between military and civilian trauma.

32 keywords...

hide…