J Am Acad Orthop Sur
-
The complex history of treating traumatic injury in Western warfare consistently included issues such as proximity to surgical care, the organization of medical systems, and the progressive development of technologies and procedures used to treat military service members who are injured in battle. Significant advances have been made in each of these areas, as evidenced in the changes in medical care in conflicts involving US forces. These advances include, among others, organized attempts to improve sanitation; panels of surgeons to assess optimal surgical approaches; the introduction of triage, wound débridement, and delayed wound closure; the development of chemotherapeutics and antibiotics; and increasingly more timely treatment. Perhaps the least recognized historical contribution to military medical care, however, is the compiled medical statistic, which informs bold research and response.
-
Approximately 70% of war wounds involve the musculoskeletal system, and military orthopaedic surgeons have assumed a pivotal role in the frontline treatment of these injuries in Iraq. Providing battlefield orthopaedic care poses special challenges; not only are many wounds unlike those encountered in civilian practice, but patients also must be triaged and treated in an austere and dangerous environment, undergo staged resuscitation and definitive surgery, and endure prolonged medical evacuation, often involving ground, helicopter, and fixed-wing transport across continents. ⋯ Treatment of war wounds, many of which are devastating in the scope of soft-tissue and bony injury, requires a team approach using hypotensive resuscitation, damage-control orthopaedics, new or rediscovered techniques of hemostatic and intravenous hemorrhage control, vacuum-assisted wound closure, and advanced reconstruction. Current challenges include prevention of infection, a better understanding of heterotopic ossification as a sequela of blast injury, and the need for a comprehensive, joint service database that encompasses the multilevel spectrum of orthopaedic care.
-
Blast trauma is a complex event. Pathophysiologically, blast injuries are identified as primary (caused solely by the direct effect of blast overpressure on the tissue), secondary (caused by flying objects or fragments), tertiary (caused by bodily displacement), or quaternary (indirectly caused by the explosion). The range of primary blast injuries includes fractures, amputations, crush injury, burns, cuts, lacerations, acute occlusion of an artery, air embolism-induced injury, compartment syndrome, and others. ⋯ Débridement and wound excision are started as early as possible, with repeat débridement performed as necessary; fasciotomies also are performed to prevent compartment syndrome. Well-vascularized muscular free flaps provide soft-tissue coverage for blast-injured extremities. The closed-open technique of flap closure allows reexamination of the wound, further irrigation, débridement, and later bone and soft-tissue reconstruction.
-
Blast injury to the extremities is the most common form of injury in recent military campaigns and in civilian terror attacks. Most orthopaedic trauma is caused by the secondary effect of blast--penetrating fragment injury. Timely wound débridement and excision of contaminated or avascular tissue, along with prevention of sepsis, are crucial to managing extremity injury. Late reconstruction and functional results are very challenging for the surgical team to achieve.
-
J Am Acad Orthop Sur · Jan 2006
ReviewFactors influencing outcome following limb-threatening lower limb trauma: lessons learned from the Lower Extremity Assessment Project (LEAP).
The Lower Extremity Assessment Project (LEAP) is a multicenter study of severe lower extremity trauma in the US civilian population. At 2- and 7-year follow-ups, the LEAP study found no difference in functional outcome between patients who underwent either limb salvage surgery or amputation. However, outcomes on average were poor for both groups. ⋯ In addition, outcomes often are more affected by the patient's economic, social, and personal resources than by the initial treatment of the injury--specifically, amputation or reconstruction and level of amputation. A conceptual framework for examining outcomes after injury may be used to identify opportunities for interventions that would improve outcomes. Because of essential differences between the civilian and military populations, the findings of the LEAP study may correlate only roughly with combat casualty outcomes.