These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Analyses of combat-related injuries to the maxillofacial and cervical regions and experiences in an operational field hospital.
    Author: Aşık MB, Akay S, Eksert S.
    Journal: Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg; 2018 Jan; 24(1):56-60. PubMed ID: 29350369.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: With the changing conditions of war, maxillofacial injuries are observed more frequently. Particularly in urban areas, high-energy explosive devices (HEEDs), such as improvised explosive devices, are often used alongside long-barreled weapons (LBWs). It is important to use trauma scoring systems and a multidisciplinary approach for medically and accurately responding to the trauma patient in a timely manner. This study aimed to compare the Military Combat Injury Scale (MCIS) and Military Functional Incapacity Scale (MFIS) between injuries sustained by LBWs or HEEDs and to share experiences of an operational field hospital. METHODS: Medical data of 84 patients admitted to an operational field hospital with maxillofacial and cervical injuries sustained by LBWs and HEEDs between July 27, 2015, and July 22, 2016 were reviewed. MCIS and MFIS scores were calculated for all patients; records of the qualifying patients were studied for the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores and injury sites. The patients were divided into two groups according to the device/weapon causing the injury: injuries sustained by LBWs in group I and those sustained by HEEDs in group II. RESULTS: All patients were males, with a mean age of 28.75 (range 20-58) years. The average GCS score was 13.4, but it was lower than 15 in 16 (19%) of the patients. There was no statistically significant difference in MCIS scores between the LBW and HEED groups (p=0.206). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in MFIS scores between the LBW and HEED groups (p=0.238). CONCLUSION: Maxillofacial and cervical region injuries are increasing in modern conflicts that are usually located in urban areas. Injuries sustained by HEEDs as well as those sustained by LBWs in the maxillofacial area are morbid and mortal. Rapid and comprehensive intervention is life-saving and helping the patient to further trauma treatment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]