Analysis of Casualties That Underwent Airway Management Before Reaching Role 2 Facilities in the Afghanistan Conflict 2008-2014

An Analysis of Head and Neck Surgical Workload During Recent Combat Operations From 2002 to 2016

INTRODUCTION

In battle-injured U.S. service members, head and neck (H&N) injuries have been documented in 29% who were treated for wounds in deployed locations and 21% who were evacuated to a Role 4 MTF. The purpose of this study is to examine the H&N surgical workload at deployed U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to inform training, needed proficiency, and MTF manning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the DoD Trauma Registry was performed for all Role 2 and Role 3 MTFs, from January 2002 to May 2016; 385 ICD-9 CM procedure codes were identified as H&N surgical procedures and were stratified into eight categories. For the purposes of this analysis, H&N procedures included dental, ophthalmologic, airway, ear, face, mandible maxilla, neck, and oral injuries. Traumatic brain injuries and vascular injuries to the neck were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 15,620 H&N surgical procedures were identified at Role 2 and Role 3 MTFs. The majority of H&N surgical procedures (14,703, 94.14%) were reported at Role 3 facilities. Facial bone procedures were the most common subgroup across both roles of care (1,181, 75.03%). Tracheostomy accounted for 16.67% of all H&N surgical procedures followed by linear repair of laceration of eyelid or eyebrow (8.23%) and neck exploration (7.41%). H&N caseload was variable.

CONCLUSIONS

H&N procedures accounted for 8.25% of all surgical procedures performed at Role 2 and Role 3 MTFs; the majority of procedures were eye (40.54%) and airway (18.50%). These data can be used as planning tools to help determine the medical footprint and also to help inform training and sustainment requirements for deployed military general surgeons especially if future contingency operations are more constrained in terms of resources and personnel.

Success rate of prehospital emergency front-of-neck access (FONA): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Front-of-neck access (FONA) is an emergency procedure used as a last resort to achieve a patent airway in the prehospital environment. In this systematic review with meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the number and success rate of FONA procedures in the prehospital setting, including changes since 2017, when a surgical technique was outlined as the first-line prehospital method.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (PROSPERO CRD42022348975) was performed from inception of databases to July 2022 to identify studies in patients of any age undergoing prehospital FONA, followed by data extraction. Meta-analysis was used to derive pooled success rates. Methodological quality of included studies was interpreted using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

From 909 studies, 69 studies were included (33 low quality; 36 very low quality) with 3292 prehospital FONA attempts described (1229 available for analysis). The crude median success rate increased from 99.2% before 2017 to 100.0% after 2017. Meta-analysis revealed a pooled overall FONA success rate of 88.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.0-91.0%). Surgical techniques had the highest success rate at a median of 100.0% (pooled rate=92.0%; 95% CI, 88.0-95.0%) vs 50.0% for needle techniques (pooled rate=52.0%; 95% CI, 28.0-76.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being a relatively rare procedure in the prehospital setting, the success rate for FONA is high. A surgical technique for FONA appears more successful than needle techniques, and supports existing UK prehospital guidelines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO CRD42022348975.

Patterns of Palliation: A Review of Casualties That Received Pain Management Before Reaching Role 2 in Afghanistan

INTRODUCTION

Battlefield pain management changed markedly during the first 20 years of the Global War on Terror. Morphine, long the mainstay of combat analgesia, diminished in favor of fentanyl and ketamine for military pain control, but the options are not hemodynamically or psychologically equivalent. Understanding patterns of prehospital analgesia may reveal further opportunities for combat casualty care improvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using Department of Defense Trauma Registry data for the Afghanistan conflict from 2005 to 2018, we examined 2,402 records of prehospital analgesia administration to assess temporal trends in medication choice and proportions receiving analgesia, including subanalysis of a cohort screened for an indication with minimal contraindication for analgesia. We further employed frequency matching to explore the presence of disparities in analgesia by casualty affiliation.

RESULTS

Proportions of documented analgesia increased throughout the study period, from 0% in 2005 to 70.6% in 2018. Afghan casualties had the highest proportion of documented analgesia (53.0%), versus U.S. military (31.9%), civilian/other (23.3%), and non-U.S. military (19.3%). Fentanyl surpassed morphine in the frequency of administration in 2012. The median age of those receiving ketamine was higher (30 years) than those receiving fentanyl (26 years) or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (23 years). Among the frequency-matched subanalysis, the odds ratio for ketamine administration with Afghan casualties was 1.84 (95% CI, 1.30-2.61).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed heterogeneity of prehospital patient care across patient affiliation groups, suggesting possible opportunities for improvement toward an overall best practice system. General increase in documented prehospital pain management likely reflects efforts toward complete documentation, as well as improved options for analgesia. Current combat casualty care documentation does not include any standardized pain scale.