Surgery for blast injuries: experience of an Australian surgical team in Afghanistan

Surgical management of injured ADF personnel deployed to Afghanistan 2001–2021

INTRODUCTION

A comprehensive review of the surgical management of injuries sustained by deployed members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) during Operation SLIPPER and HIGHROAD in Afghanistan has not previously been undertaken. Understanding the mechanism of injury, injury types sustained and surgical intervention undertaken should provide valuable information for future health planning and surgical capability determination.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of scanned medical records of injured personnel identified through casualty register examination was undertaken.

RESULTS

There were 259 ADF personnel injured in Afghanistan between January 2002 and December 2021, of which 53 were seriously (SI), or very seriously injured (VSI). Case notes for 90 of 101 casualties including those sustaining VSI, SI and those classified as being in satisfactory condition, but likely requiring surgery and/or returned to Australia following trauma, were available for review. Most patients with VSI/SI required surgery (93%) and most were returned to Australia following injury (91%). Almost two-thirds (64.4%) of initial surgery was undertaken at a Role 2 E medical treatment facility (MTF). Gun-shot wound (GSW) was the commonest injuring mechanism (47%) followed by blast injury (39.6%). Orthopaedic (32.2%) and soft tissue initial wound surgery (47.1%) were the commonest surgical procedures.

DISCUSSION

Surgical management of military trauma was undertaken at multiple sites by multiple surgical teams from different nationalities delivering exceptional results and conforming to modern principles of damage control surgery. The military trauma system is distinctly different from its civilian counterpart with dispersion of assets requiring multiple episodes of casualty movement between echelons of care rather than centralization at level 1 trauma centres. Despite this, excellent results are achievable. Strengthening lines of communication and documentation would reinforce the ability of the military trauma system to continue to provide such results, and regular oversight and review of surgical caseload would align military trauma surgery with civilian standards. The benchmark set by the United States Department of Defense Trauma Registry should be replicated for Australian led combat operations and modified to facilitate interoperability to support future coalition combat operations.