Journals / Turkish Journal of Surgery / 2018 / Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of the non-mortal gunshot and handmade explosive blast traumas during a low-intensity conflict on urban terrain

Pages
221–224
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Ocular ruptures are also common, especially with blast injuries, warrantingequipping the personnel with protective goggles.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: We aimed to conduct a cross-sectional data analysis involving 60 patients wounded during a lowintensity conflict on urban terrain.Material and Methods: Data of the 60 patients wounded during a low-intensity conflict on urban terrain betweenSeptember 1st, 2016, and January 15th, 2017, and transferred to our hospital after the initial medical interventionsconducted in the regional hospitals were probed retrospectively.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Group A consisted of 25 (41.67%) patients sufferinggunshot wounds, and Group B consisted of 35 (58.33%) patients with blast trauma injuries.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Ocular ruptures are also common, especially with blast injuries, warrantingequipping the personnel with protective goggles.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: We aimed to conduct a cross-sectional data analysis involving 60 patients wounded during a lowintensity conflict on urban terrain.Material and Methods: Data of the 60 patients wounded during a low-intensity conflict on urban terrain betweenSeptember 1st, 2016, and January 15th, 2017, and transferred to our hospital after the initial medical interventionsconducted in the regional hospitals were probed retrospectively. Group A consisted of 25 (41.67%) patients sufferinggunshot wounds, and Group B consisted of 35 (58.33%) patients with blast trauma injuries. Their Abbreviated InjuryScale scores were compared according to the injured body compartment.Results: In both groups, extremities were the most common site of injury (17 [50%] for Group A, 18 [33.33%] for Group B). The difference between the two groups was statistically significant for only head and neck injuries and facialinjuries (p<0.05). In each group, only one body compartment was affected in 19 patients, which represented 55.88%of patients in Group A and 35.18% of patients in Group B. Injuries of three compartments concurrently occurred in3 (8.82%) patients in Group A and 4 (7.4%) patients in Group B. None of our patients died because of their injuries.Conclusion: Contrary to the expected, gunshot casualties were found to be more likely to suffer from extremityinjuries than blast casualties did, and it should be noted that blast trauma casualties tend to have multiple compartment injuries that should not be missed. Ocular ruptures are also common, especially with blast injuries, warrantingequipping the personnel with protective goggles.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜVEN, H. E., BİLGE, S., AYDIN, A. A., ERYILMAZ, M. (2018). Comparison of the non-mortal gunshot and handmade explosive blast traumas during a low-intensity conflict on urban terrain. Turkish Journal of Surgery, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 3, 221–224. https://ajindex.com/articles/376554

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. Champion HR, Holcomb JB, Young LA. Injuries from explosions: physics, biophsycics, pathology, and required research focus. Mil Med 2006; 171: 273-277.
  2. Özer MT, Coşkun K, Öğünç Gİ, Eryılmaz M, Yiğit T, Kozak O, et al. The disguised face of blast injuries: shock waves. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2010; 16: 395-400. JAMA: Rating the severity of tissue damage. The abbreviated scale. JAMA 1971; 215: 277-280. [CrossRef] Walker JJ, Kelly JF, McCriskin BJ, Bader JO, Schoenfeld AJ. Combat-related gunshot wounds in the United States Military: 2000- 2009 (Cohort Study). Int J Surg 2012; 10: 140-143. [CrossRef] Hoencamp R, Huizinga EP, van Dongen TT, Idenburg FJ, Ramasamy A, Leenen LP, et al. Impact of explosive devices in modern armed conflicts: in-depth analysis of Dutch battle casualties in southern Afghanistan. World J Surg 2014; 38: 2551- 2557. [CrossRef] Dubost C, Goudard Y, Soucanye de LE, Contargyris C, Evans D, Pauleau G. Combat casualties from two current conflicts with the seventh French Forward Surgical Team in Mali and central African Republic in 2014. J. R. Army Med Corps 2016; 162: 450- 455. [CrossRef] Hoencamp R, Vermetten E, Tan EC, Putter H, Leenen LP, Hamming JF. Systematic review of the prevalence and characteristics of battle casualties from NATO coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Injury 2014; 45: 1028-1034. [CrossRef] Lawnick MM, Champion HR, Gennarelli T, Galarneau MR, D’Souza E, Vickers RR, et al. Combat injury coding: a review and reconfiguration. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013; 75: 573-581. [CrossRef] Tohira H, Jacobs I, Mountain D, Gibson N, Yeo A. Systemic review of predictive performance of injury severity scoring tools. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2012; 20: 63. [CrossRef] Tong D, Beirne R. Combat body armor and injuries to the head, face, and neck region: a systemic review. Mil Med 2013; 178: 421- 426. [CrossRef] Shackford SR, Kahl JE, Calvo RY, Kozar RA, Haugen CE, Kaups KL, et al. Gunshot wounds and blast injuries to the face are associated with significant morbidity and mortality: results of an 11-year multi-institutional study of 720 patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2014; 76: 347-352. [CrossRef]