How are we currently training and maintaining clinical readiness of US and UK military surgeons responsible for managing head, face and neck wounds on deployment?

Introduction

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan provided military surgeons from the USA and the UK with extensive experience into the management of injuries to the head, face and neck (HFN) from high energy bullets and explosive weaponry. The challenge is now to maintain the expertise in managing such injuries for future military deployments.

Methods

The manner in which each country approaches four parameters required for a surgeon to competently treat HFN wounds in deployed military environments was compared. These comprised initial surgical training (residency/registrar training), surgical fellowships, hospital type and appointment as an attending (USA) or consultant (UK) and predeployment training.

Results

Neither country has residents/registrars undertaking surgical training that is military specific. The Major Trauma and Reconstructive Fellowship based in Birmingham UK and the Craniomaxillofacial Trauma fellowship at Duke University USA provide additional training directly applicable to managing HFN trauma on deployment. Placement in level 1 trauma/major trauma centres is encouraged by both countries but is not mandatory. US surgeons attend one of three single-service predeployment courses, of which HFN skills are taught on both cadavers and in a 1-week clinical placement in a level 1 trauma centre. UK surgeons attend the Military Operational Surgical Training programme, a 1-week course that includes 1 day dedicated to teaching HFN injury management on cadavers.

Conclusions

Multiple specialties of surgeon seen in the civilian environment are unlikely to be present, necessitating development of extended competencies. Military-tailored fellowships are capable of generating most of these skills early in a career. Regular training courses including simulation are required to maintain such skills and should not be given only immediately prior to deployment. Strong evidence exists that military consultants and attendings should only work at level 1/major trauma centres.

Loop versus end colostomy reversal: has anything changed?

PURPOSE

Though primary repair of colon injuries is preferred, certain injury patterns require colostomy creation. Colostomy reversal is associated with significant morbidity and healthcare cost. Complication rates may be influenced by technique of diversion (loop vs. end colostomy), though this remains ill-defined. We hypothesized that reversal of loop colostomies is associated with fewer complications than end colostomies.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, multi-institutional study (four, level-1 trauma centers) of patients undergoing colostomy takedown for trauma during the time period 1/2006-12/2012. Data were collected from index trauma admission and subsequent admission for reversal and included demographics and complications of reversal. Student's t test was used to compare continuous variables against loop versus end colostomy. Discrete variables were compared against both groups using Chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Over the 6-year study period, 218 patients underwent colostomy takedown after trauma with a mean age of 30; 190 (87%) were male, 162 (74%) had penetrating injury as their indication for colostomy, and 98 (45%) experienced at least one complication. Patients in the end colostomy group (n = 160) were more likely to require midline laparotomy (145 vs. 18, p < 0.001), had greater intra-operative blood loss (260.7 vs. 99.4 mL, p < 0.001), had greater hospital length of stay (8.4 vs. 5.5 days, p < 0.001), and had more overall complications (81 vs. 17, p = 0.005) than patients managed with loop colostomy (n = 58).

CONCLUSIONS

Local takedown of a loop colostomy is safe and leads to shorter hospital stays, less intra-operative blood loss, and fewer complications when compared to end colostomy.

Assessment of carcinogenic hazard of chemical mixtures through analysis of binary chemical interaction data

Assessment of the potential health hazard of environmental complex chemical mixtures is one of the most difficult and challenging problems in toxicology. In this article, we describe the development of an innovative computerized system for ranking and predicting potential cancer hazard of chemical mixtures. We take into consideration both the additive risk of individual carcinogens present and the projected overall interaction effect of the mixture based on analyzing and integrating the possible interaction effects of all binary pairs of individual constituents of the mixture. Using this system, it can be predicted that a number of mixtures of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons should have a carcinogenic risk lower than that calculated by the simple additivity model, whereas the reverse is true for a number of other mixtures. The system can be very useful in hazard ranking and priority setting in dealing with mixture problems such as cleanup of hazardous waste.