Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Jan;53(1):3-7. doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.04.017. Epub 2014 Oct 23.

Novel method for comparing coverage by future methods of ballistic facial protection.

Author information

1
Academic Department of Military Surgery and Trauma, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham Research Park, Birmingham, B15 2SQ; Injury modelling, Dstl Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP4 0JQ. Electronic address: johno.breeze@gmail.com.
2
Injury modelling, Dstl Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP4 0JQ.
3
Soldier System Programmes, Defence Equipment and Support, Ministry of Defence, Abbeywood, Bristol, BS34 8JH.

Abstract

The wearing of eye protection by United Kingdom soldiers in Afghanistan has reduced the morbidity caused by explosive fragments. However, the remaining face remains uncovered because there is a lack of evidence to substantiate the procurement of methods to protect it. Using a new computerised tool we entered details of the entry sites of surface wounds caused by explosive fragments in all UK soldiers who were injured in the face between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2011. We compared clinical and predicted immediate and long term outcomes (as defined by the Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) and the Functional Capacity Index (pFCI), respectively). We also used the tool to predict how additional protection in the form of a visor and mandible guard would affect outcomes. A soldier wearing eye protection was 9 times (1.03/0.12) less likely to sustain an eye injury than one without. However, 38% of soldiers in this series were not wearing eye protection at the time of injury. There was no significant difference between the AIS and pFCI scores predicted by the tool and those found clinically. There is limited evidence to support the use of a mandible guard; its greatest asset is better protection of the nose, but a visor would be expected to reduce long-term morbidity more than eye protection alone, and we recommend future trials to assess its acceptability to users. We think that use of this novel tool can help in the selection of future methods of ballistic facial protection.

KEYWORDS:

Ballistic; Eye; Face; Injury; Mapping; Outcome; Prediction; Protection; Wound

PMID:
25441496
DOI:
10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.04.017
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center