-
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Aug 2022Blast polytrauma is among the most serious mechanisms of injury confronted by medical providers. There are currently no specific studies or guidelines that define risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Blast polytrauma is among the most serious mechanisms of injury confronted by medical providers. There are currently no specific studies or guidelines that define risk factors for mortality in the context of pediatric blast injuries or describe pediatric blast injury profiles.
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this study were to evaluate risk factors for pediatric mortality and to describe differences in injury profiles between explosions related to terrorism versus unrelated to terrorism within the pediatric population.
METHODS
A PRISMA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed where articles published from the years 2000-2021 were extracted from PubMed. Mortality and injury profile data were extracted from articles that met inclusion criteria. A bivariant unadjusted odds ratio (OR) analysis was performed to establish protective and harmful factors associated with mortality and to describe the injury profiles of blasts related to terrorism. Statistical significance was established at P < .05.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight articles were included and described a total of 222,638 unique injuries. Factors associated with increased mortality included if the explosion was related to terrorism (OR = 32.73; 95% CI, 28.80-37.21; P < .05) and if the explosion involved high-grade explosives utilized in the Global War on Terror ([GWOT] OR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.44; P < .05). Factors associated with decreased mortality included if the patient was resuscitated in a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-affiliated combat trauma hospital (OR = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.62; P < .05); if the explosive was fireworks (OR = 3.20×10-5; 95% CI, 2.00×10-6-5.16×10-4; P < .05); and if the explosion occurred in the United States (OR = 2.40×10-5; 95% CI, 1.51×10-6-3.87×10-4; P < .05). On average, victims of explosions related to terrorism were 10.30 years old (SD = 2.73) with 68.96% (SD = 17.58%) of victims reported as male. Comparison of victims of explosions related to terrorism revealed a higher incidence of thoracoabdominal trauma (30.2% versus 8.6%), similar incidence of craniocerebral trauma (39.5% versus 43.1%), and lower incidence of extremity trauma (31.8% versus 48.3%) compared to victims of explosions unrelated to terrorism.
CONCLUSION
Explosions related to terrorism are associated with increased mortality and unique injury profiles compared to explosions unrelated to terrorism in the pediatric population. Such findings are important for optimizing disaster medical education of pediatric providers in preparation for and management of acute sequelae of blast injuries-terror-related and otherwise.
Topics: Blast Injuries; Child; Explosions; Hospitals; Humans; Male; Multiple Trauma; Terrorism
PubMed: 35603691
DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X22000747 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2020As a result of armed conflict, head trauma from exposure to blasts is an increasing critical health issue, particularly among military service members. Whilst numerous...
As a result of armed conflict, head trauma from exposure to blasts is an increasing critical health issue, particularly among military service members. Whilst numerous studies examined the burden of blast-related brain injuries on service members', few systematic reviews have been published. This work provides a comprehensive summary of the evidence on blast-related mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) burden in active U.S. military service members and inactive Veterans, describing characteristics and outcomes. Records published up to April 2017 were identified through a search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library. Records-based and original research reporting on U.S. military service members and Veterans with mild blast TBI were included. Data on subject characteristics, exposure, diagnostic criterion, and outcomes were extracted from included studies using a standardized extraction form and were presented narratively. Of the 2,290 references identified by the search, 106 studies with a total of 37,515 participants met inclusion criteria for blast-related mTBI. All but nine studies were based out of military or Veteran medical facilities. Unsurprisingly, men were over-represented (75-100%). The criteria used to define blast-related mTBI were consistent; however, the methodology used to ascertain whether individuals met those criteria for diagnosis were inconsistent. The diagnosis, most prevalent among the Army, heavily relied on self-reported histories. Commonly reported adverse outcomes included hearing disturbances and headaches. The most frequently associated comorbidities were post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, attention disorders, and cognitive disorders. The primary objective of this review was to provide a summary of descriptive data on blast-related mTBI in a U.S. military population. Low standardization of the methods for reaching diagnosis and problems in the study reporting emphasize the importance to collect high-quality data to fill knowledge gaps pertaining to blast-related mTBI.
PubMed: 33224086
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.559318 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Aug 2022The noble gases argon and xenon are potential novel neuroprotective treatments for acquired brain injuries. Xenon has already undergone early-stage clinical trials in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The noble gases argon and xenon are potential novel neuroprotective treatments for acquired brain injuries. Xenon has already undergone early-stage clinical trials in the treatment of ischaemic brain injuries, with mixed results. Argon has yet to progress to clinical trials as a treatment for brain injury. Here, we aim to synthesise the results of preclinical studies evaluating argon and xenon as neuroprotective therapies for brain injuries.
METHODS
After a systematic review of the MEDLINE and Embase databases, we carried out a pairwise and stratified meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was examined by subgroup analysis, funnel plot asymmetry, and Egger's regression.
RESULTS
A total of 32 studies were identified, 14 for argon and 18 for xenon, involving measurements from 1384 animals, including murine, rat, and porcine models. Brain injury models included ischaemic brain injury after cardiac arrest (CA), neurological injury after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and ischaemic stroke. Both argon and xenon had significant (P<0.001), positive neuroprotective effect sizes. The overall effect size for argon (CA, TBI, stroke) was 18.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1-28.1%), and for xenon (CA, TBI, stroke) was 34.1% (95% CI, 24.7-43.6%). Including the CPB model, only present for xenon, the xenon effect size (CPB, CA, TBI, stroke) was 27.4% (95% CI, 11.5-43.3%). Xenon, both with and without the CPB model, was significantly (P<0.001) more protective than argon.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings provide evidence to support the use of xenon and argon as neuroprotective treatments for acquired brain injuries. Current evidence suggests that xenon is more efficacious than argon overall.
Topics: Animals; Argon; Brain Injuries; Brain Ischemia; Heart Arrest; Mice; Neuroprotection; Neuroprotective Agents; Noble Gases; Rats; Stroke; Swine; Xenon
PubMed: 35688658
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.04.016 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Sep 2016Non-iatrogenic trauma to the airway is rare and presents a significant challenge to the anaesthetist. Although guidelines for the management of the unanticipated... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Non-iatrogenic trauma to the airway is rare and presents a significant challenge to the anaesthetist. Although guidelines for the management of the unanticipated difficult airway have been published, these do not make provision for the 'anticipated' difficult airway. This systematic review aims to inform best practice and suggest management options for different injury patterns.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted using Embase, Medline, and Google Scholar for papers after the year 2000 reporting on the acute airway management of adult patients who suffered airway trauma. Our protocol and search strategy are registered with and published by PROSPERO (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, ID: CRD42016032763).
RESULTS
A systematic literature search yielded 578 articles, of which a total of 148 full-text papers were reviewed. We present our results categorized by mechanism of injury: blunt, penetrating, blast, and burns.
CONCLUSIONS
The hallmark of airway management with trauma to the airway is the maintenance of spontaneous ventilation, intubation under direct vision to avoid the creation of a false passage, and the avoidance of both intermittent positive pressure ventilation and cricoid pressure (the latter for laryngotracheal trauma only) during a rapid sequence induction. Management depends on available resources and time to perform airway assessment, investigations, and intervention (patients will be classified into one of three categories: no time, some time, or adequate time). Human factors, particularly the development of a shared mental model amongst the trauma team, are vital to mitigate risk and improve patient safety.
Topics: Airway Management; Anesthesia, General; Burns; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Larynx; Respiratory System; Trachea; Wounds, Nonpenetrating; Wounds, Penetrating
PubMed: 27566791
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew193 -
Medicine May 2019Traumatic vascular injury is caused by explosions and projectiles (bullets and shrapnel); it may affect the arteries and veins of the limbs, and is common in wartime,...
BACKGROUND
Traumatic vascular injury is caused by explosions and projectiles (bullets and shrapnel); it may affect the arteries and veins of the limbs, and is common in wartime, triggering bleeding, and ischemia. The increasing use of high-energy weapons in modern warfare is associated with severe vascular injuries.
METHODS
To summarize the current evidence of diagnosis and treatment for traumatic vascular injury of limbs, for saving limbs and lives, and put forward some new insights, we comprehensively consulted literatures and analyzed progress in injury diagnosis and wound treatment, summarized the advanced treatments now available, especially in wartime, and explored the principal factors in play in an effort to optimize clinical outcomes.
RESULTS
Extremity vascular trauma poses several difficult dilemmas in diagnosis and treatment. The increasing use of high-energy weapons in modern warfare is associated with severe vascular injuries. Any delay in treatment may lead to loss of limbs or death. The development of diagnose and treat vascular injury of extremities are the clinical significance to the tip of military medicine, such as the use of fast, cheap, low invasive diagnostic methods, repairing severe vascular injury as soon as possible, using related technologies actively (fasciotomy, etc).
CONCLUSION
We point out the frontier of the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic vascular injury, also with a new model of wartime injury treatment in American (forward surgical teams and combat support hospitals), French military surgeons regarding management of war-related vascular wounds and Chinese military ("3 districts and 7 grades" model). Many issues remain to be resolved by further experience and investigation.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Ankle Brachial Index; Blast Injuries; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Decompression, Surgical; Emergency Medicine; Extremities; Fasciotomy; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Military Medicine; Military Personnel; Retrospective Studies; Skin Transplantation; Time Factors; Trauma Severity Indices; United States; Vascular Surgical Procedures; Vascular System Injuries
PubMed: 31045795
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015406 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Dec 2021Low back pain (LBP) is prevalent in military personnel. We aimed to systematically review the literature regarding risk factors for first-time LBP during military... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Low back pain (LBP) is prevalent in military personnel. We aimed to systematically review the literature regarding risk factors for first-time LBP during military service among active duty military personnel.
METHODS
We searched six electronic databases (inception-April 2020) for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals. Eligible studies were independently critically appraised by paired reviewers and a descriptive synthesis was conducted.
RESULTS
We screened 1981 records, reviewed 118 full-text articles, and synthesised data from eight acceptable quality cohort studies. Studies assessed physical (n = 4), sociodemographic (n = 2), and/or occupational factors (n = 5) associated with LBP. Two studies reported prior LBP was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of LBP compared to those without prior LBP. Other factors consistently associated with LBP included previous musculoskeletal injury (n = 2), less time spent on physical training (n = 2), female sex (n = 2), and lower rank (n = 2). Factors associated with LBP from single studies included marital status, lower education level, blast injury, job duties, and service type. We found inconsistent associations for performance on physical fitness tests, age, and occupation type. Psychological risk factors were not assessed in any included studies.
CONCLUSION
In active duty personnel, prior history of LBP, previous musculoskeletal injury, less time in physical training, female sex, and lower rank were consistent risk factors for LBP. This information is relevant for researchers, active duty military personnel, and other decision makers. Future studies should explore causal relationships for LBP in this population. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084549.
Topics: Cohort Studies; Exercise; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Military Personnel; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34969400
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-021-00409-x -
Frontiers in Neurology 2021Although blast exposure has been recognized as a significant source of morbidity and mortality in military populations, our understanding of the effects of blast...
Although blast exposure has been recognized as a significant source of morbidity and mortality in military populations, our understanding of the effects of blast exposure, particularly low-level blast (LLB) exposure, on health outcomes remains limited. This scoping review provides a comprehensive, accessible review of the peer-reviewed literature that has been published on blast exposure over the past two decades, with specific emphasis on LLB. We conducted a comprehensive scoping review of the scientific literature published between January 2000 and 2019 pertaining to the effects of blast injury and/or exposure on human and animal health. A three-level review process with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria was used. A full-text review of all articles pertaining to LLB exposure was conducted and relevant study characteristics were extracted. The research team identified 3,215 blast-relevant articles, approximately half of which (55.4%) studied live humans, 16% studied animals, and the remainder were non-subjects research (e.g., literature reviews). Nearly all (99.49%) of the included studies were conducted by experts in medicine or epidemiology; approximately half of these articles were categorized into more than one medical specialty. Among the 51 articles identified as pertaining to LLB specifically, 45.1% were conducted on animals and 39.2% focused on human subjects. Animal studies of LLB predominately used shock tubes to induce various blast exposures in rats, assessed a variety of outcomes, and clearly demonstrated that LLB exposure is associated with brain injury. In contrast, the majority of LLB studies on humans were conducted among military and law enforcement personnel in training environments and had remarkable variability in the exposures and outcomes assessed. While findings suggest that there is the potential for LLB to harm human populations, findings are mixed and more research is needed. Although it is clear that more research is needed on this rapidly growing topic, this review highlights the detrimental effects of LLB on the health of both animals and humans. Future research would benefit from multidisciplinary collaboration, larger sample sizes, and standardization of terminology, exposures, and outcomes.
PubMed: 33776888
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.628782 -
Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.) Oct 2009To review the literature addressing the assessment and management of pain in patients with polytraumatic injuries including traumatic brain injury (TBI) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To review the literature addressing the assessment and management of pain in patients with polytraumatic injuries including traumatic brain injury (TBI) and blast-related headache, and to identify patient, clinician and systems factors associated with pain-related outcomes.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
We conducted searches in MEDLINE of literature published from 1950 through July 2008. Due to a limited number of studies using controls or comparators, we included observational and rigorous qualitative studies. We systematically rated the quality of systematic reviews, cohort, and case-control design studies.
RESULTS
One systematic review, 93 observational studies, and one qualitative research study met inclusion criteria. The literature search yielded no published studies that assessed measures of pain intensity or pain-related functional interference among patients with cognitive deficits due to TBI, that compared patients with blast-related headache with patients with other types of headache, or that assessed treatments for blast-related headache pain. Studies on the association between TBI severity and pain reported mixed findings. There was limited evidence that the following factors are associated with pain among TBI patients: severity, location, and multiplicity of injuries; insomnia; fatigue; depression; and post-traumatic stress disorder.
CONCLUSIONS
Very little evidence is currently available to guide pain assessment and treatment approaches in patients with polytrauma. Further research employing systematic observational as well as controlled intervention designs is clearly indicated.
Topics: Brain Injuries; Comorbidity; Humans; Incidence; Inpatients; Multiple Trauma; Pain; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Prevalence; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19818031
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00721.x -
Archives of Rehabilitation Research and... Jun 2019This systematic review aims to evaluate current literature for the prevalence, causes, and effect of low back pain (LBP) in traumatic lower limb amputees, specifically... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aims to evaluate current literature for the prevalence, causes, and effect of low back pain (LBP) in traumatic lower limb amputees, specifically its association with the kinematics and kinetics of the lumbar spine and lower extremities.
DATA SOURCES
Databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched systematically for eligible studies from inception to January 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
The inclusion terms were synonyms of , , and , whereas studies involving nontraumatic amputee populations, single cases, or reviews were excluded. 1822 studies were initially identified, of which 44 progressed to full-text reading, and 11 studies were included in the review.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two independent reviewers reviewed the included studies, which were evaluated using a quality assessment tool and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system for risk of bias, prior to analyzing results and conclusions.
DATA SYNTHESIS
There was an LBP prevalence of 52%-64% in traumatic amputees, compared to 48%-77% in the general amputee population (predominantly vascular, tumor, trauma), attributed to a mixture of biomechanical, psychosocial, and personal factors. These factors determined the presence, frequency, and severity of the pain in the amputees, significantly affecting their quality of life. However, little evidence was available on causality.
CONCLUSION
The high prevalence of LBP in traumatic amputees highlights the necessity to advance research into the underlying mechanics behind LBP, specifically the spinal kinematics and kinetics. This may facilitate improvements in rehabilitation, with the potential to improve quality of life in traumatic amputees.
PubMed: 33543047
DOI: 10.1016/j.arrct.2019.100007 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2013Trauma is the fifth leading cause of death worldwide, and in people younger than 40 years of age, it is the leading cause of death. During the resuscitation of trauma... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Trauma is the fifth leading cause of death worldwide, and in people younger than 40 years of age, it is the leading cause of death. During the resuscitation of trauma patients at the emergency department, there are two different commonly used diagnostic strategies. Conventionally, there is the use of physical examination and conventional diagnostic imaging, potentially followed by selective use of computed tomography (CT). Alternatively, there is the use of physical examination and conventional diagnostics, followed by a routine (instead of selective) use of thoracoabdominal CT. It is currently unknown which of the two strategies is the better diagnostic strategy for patients with blunt high-energy trauma.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of routine thoracoabdominal CT compared with selective thoracoabdominal CT on mortality in blunt high-energy trauma patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 4, 2013); MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP) and CINAHL for all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We did not restrict the searches by language, date or publication status. We conducted the search on the 9 May 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs of trauma resuscitation algorithms using routine thoracoabdominal CT versus algorithms using selective CT in this review. We included all blunt high-energy trauma patients (including blast or barotrauma).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently evaluated the search results.
MAIN RESULTS
The systematic search identified 481 references; after removal of duplicates, 396 remained. We found no RCTs comparing routine versus selective thoracoabdominal CT in blunt high-energy trauma patients. We excluded 381 studies based on the abstracts of the publications because of irrelevance to the review topic, and a further 15 studies after full-text evaluation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no RCTs of routine versus selective thoracoabdominal CT in patients with blunt high-energy trauma. Based on the lack of evidence from RCTs, it is not possible to say which approach is better in reducing deaths.
Topics: Abdominal Injuries; Humans; Thoracic Injuries; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Wounds, Nonpenetrating
PubMed: 24363034
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009743.pub2