Lessons Learned in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery from British Military Deployments in Afghanistan

Management of war-related facial wounds in Ukraine: the Lviv military hospital experience

The Lviv Military Medical Centre is the main hospital responsible for the management of wounded military personnel in Western Ukraine. Since the full-scale invasion of our country in 2022, we have had to rapidly adapt our department to managing a large influx of complex facial battle injuries. These wounds are generally from large explosive fragments such as from shells and commonly produce avulsive defects of the facial bones and overlying soft tissues. Using representative cases, we aim to discuss management of these extensive injuries and guide the future direction of our service, particularly in surgical training such as microvascular anastomosis.

Management of Maxillofacial Gunshot Injuries With Emphasis on Damage Control Surgery During the Yemen Civil War. Review of 173 Victims From a Level 1 Trauma Hospital in Najran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Study Design

Studies on the concept of Damage Control Surgery (DCS) in the management of firearm injuries to the oral and maxillofacial region are still scarce, hence the basis for the current study.

Objectives

The objectives of the current study is to share our experience in the management of maxillofacial gunshot injuries with emphasis on DCS and early definitive surgery.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of combatant Yemeni patients with maxillofacial injuries who were transferred across the border from Yemen to Najran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Demographics and etiology of injuries were stored. Paths of entry and exit of the projectiles were also noted. Also recorded were types of gunshot injury and treatment protocols adopted. Data was stored and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 25 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp).

Results

A total of 408 victims, all males, were seen during the study period with 173 (42.4%) males sustaining gunshot injuries to the maxillofacial region. Their ages ranged from 21 to 56 years with mean ± SD (27.5 ± 7.6) years. One hundred and twenty-one (70.0%) victims had extraoral bullet entry, while 53 (30.0%) victims had intraoral entry route. Ocular injuries, consisting of 25 (14.5%) cases of ruptured globe and 6 (3.5%) cases of corneal injuries, were the most commonly associated injuries. A total of 78 (45.1%) hemodynamically unstable victims had DCS as the adopted treatment protocol while early definitive surgery was carried out in 47(27.2%) hemodynamically stable victims. ORIF was the treatment modality used for the fractures in 132 (76.3%) of the victims.

Conclusions

We observed that 42.4% of the war victims sustained gunshot injuries. DCS with ORIF was the main treatment protocol adopted in the management of the hemodynamically unstable patients.

Combat Facial Fractures Sustained During Operation Resolute Support and Operation Freedom’s Sentinel in Afghanistan

Introduction

Facial fractures sustained in combat are generally unrepresentative of those commonly experienced in civilian practice. In the US military, acute trauma patient care is guided by the Joint Trauma System Clinical Practice Guidelines but currently none exists for facial trauma.

Materials and methods

All casualties that underwent surgery to facial fractures between January 01, 2016 and September 15, 2019 at a US deployed Military Treatment Facility in Afghanistan were identified using the operating room database. Surgical operative records and outpatient records for local Afghan nationals returning for follow-up were reviewed to determine outcomes.

Results

55 casualties underwent treatment of facial fractures; these were predominantly from explosive devices (27/55, 49%). About 46/55 (84%) were local nationals, of which 32 (70%) were followed up. Length of follow-up ranged between 1 and 25 months. About 36/93 (39%) of all planned procedures developed complications, with the highest being from ORIF mandible (18/23, 78%). About 8/23 (35%) casualties undergoing ORIF mandible developed osteomyelitis, of which 5 developed nonunion. Complications were equally likely to occur in those procedures for “battlefield type” events such as explosive devices and gunshot wounds (31/68, 46%) as those from “civilian type” events such as falls or motor vehicle collisions (5/11, 45%).

Conclusions

Complications Rates from facial fractures were higher than that reported in civilian trauma. This likely reflects factors such as energy deposition, bacterial load, and time to treatment. Load sharing osteosynthesis should be the default modality for fracture fixation. External fixation should be considered in particular for complex high-energy or infected mandible fractures where follow-up is possible.

Developing a craniomaxillofacial and cervical equipment module for surgeons in the austere environment: a systematic review

The treatment of craniomaxillofacial and cervical wounds in a disaster relief setting is done by clinicians from local medical treatment facilities, non-governmental organisations (NGO), or the military. Although each group and individual surgeon will need specific equipment, this will be restricted by weight, portability and interoperability. We systematically reviewed scientific and commercial publications according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The papers we identified described the portable equipment that is required to treat patients who need damage-control surgery (decompressive craniectomy, temporary stabilisation, and internal and external fixation of the facial bones) for craniomaxillofacial and cervical injuries in austere or military settings. Austere settings are those in which there is an inherent lack of infrastructure, such as facilities, roads, and power. A total of 35 papers or scientific articles recommended the equipment that is needed to manage these injuries, but we could find no module that was specifically designed for use in these environments. Multiple modules are currently required to provide comprehensive surgical care and many of the items in the existing maxillofacial and neurosurgical kits are rarely used, which increases the cost of initial procurement and resupply. Duplications in equipment between modules also increase the size, weight, and financial cost. We suggest the equipment that is required to make up a rationalised, lightweight, and compact module that can be used for all craniomaxillofacial and cervical operations in austere settings.

Facial injury management undertaken at US and UK medical treatment facilities during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To perform the first direct comparison of the facial injuries sustained and treatment performed at USA and UK deployed medical treatment facilities (MTFs) in support of the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

SETTING

The US and UK Joint Theatre Trauma Registries were scrutinised for all patients with facial injuries presenting alive to a UK or US deployed MTF between 1 March 2003 and 31 October 2011.

PARTICIPANTS

US and UK military personnel, local police, local military and civilians.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

An adjusted multiple logistic regression model was performed using tracheostomy as the primary dependent outcome variable and treatment in a US MTF, US or UK military, mandible fracture and treatment of mandible fracture as independent secondary variables.

RESULTS

Facial injuries were identified in 16 944 casualties, with the most common being those to skin/muscle (64%), bone fractures (36%), inner/middle ear (28%) and intraoral damage (11%). Facial injuries were equally likely to undergo surgery in US MTF as UK MTF (OR: 1.06, 95% CI 0.4603 to 1.142, p=0.6656); however, variations were seen in injury type treated. In US MTF, 692/1452 (48%) of mandible fractures were treated by either open or closed reduction compared with 0/167 (0%) in UK MTF (χ²: 113.6; p≤0.0001). US military casualties who had treatment of their mandible fracture (open reduction and internal fixation or mandibulo-maxillary fixation) were less likely to have had a tracheostomy than those who did not undergo stabilisation of the fractured mandible (OR: 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.86; p=0.0066).

CONCLUSIONS

The capability to surgically treat mandible fractures by open or closed reduction should be considered as an integral component of deployed coalition surgical care in the future.

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.

Skill sets required for the management of military head, face and neck trauma: a multidisciplinary consensus statement

Introduction

The evolution of medical practice is resulting in increasing subspecialisation, with head, face and neck (HFN) trauma in a civilian environment usually managed by a combination of surgical specialties working as a team. However, the full combination of HFN specialties commonly available in the NHS may not be available in future UK military-led operations, necessitating the identification of a group of skill sets that could be delivered by one or more deployed surgeons.

Method

A systematic review was undertaken to identify those surgical procedures performed to treat acute military head, face, neck and eye trauma. A multidisciplinary consensus group was convened following this with military HFN trauma expertise to define those procedures commonly required to conduct deployed, in-theatre HFN surgical combat trauma management.

Results

Head, face, neck and eye damage control surgical procedures were identified as comprising surgical cricothyroidotomy, cervico-facial haemorrhage control and decompression of orbital haemorrhage through lateral canthotomy. Acute in-theatre surgical skills required within 24 hours consist of wound debridement, surgical tracheostomy, decompressive craniectomy, intracranial pressure monitor placement, temporary facial fracture stabilisation for airway management or haemorrhage control and primary globe repair. Delayed in-theatre procedures required within 5 days prior to predicted evacuation encompass facial fracture fixation, delayed lateral canthotomy, evisceration, enucleation and eyelid repair.

Conclusions

The identification of those skill sets required for deployment is in keeping with the General Medical Council’s current drive towards credentialing consultants, by which a consultant surgeon’s capabilities in particular practice areas would be defined. Limited opportunities currently exist for trainees and consultants to gain experience in the management of traumatic head, face, neck and eye injuries seen in a kinetic combat environment. Predeployment training requires that the surgical techniques described in this paper are covered and should form the curriculum of future military-specific surgical fellowships. Relevant continued professional development will be necessary to maintain required clinical competency.

Damage control surgery and combat-related maxillofacial and cervical injuries: a systematic review

Damage control surgery involves rapid assessment, life-saving resuscitation, and abbreviated surgery for a patient with severe injuries. Traditionally the concept of damage control surgery has been restricted to penetrating abdominal injuries, but more recently it has been expanded to areas outside of the abdomen including the maxillofacial and neck regions. However, we know of little evidence that, when applied to injuries to the face and neck, it changes outcomes. We systematically reviewed published papers to identify those that discussed damage control in the context of combat-related trauma of the face and neck. We identified three papers that discussed the principles of managing combat-related maxillofacial injuries, all three of which were review articles that advocated the use of damage control principles in facial injuries either in isolation or as part of a multisystem approach. Anecdotal experience and opinion indicates that the concept of damage control is applicable when managing combat-related injuries of the face and neck, but no outcomes were confirmed. Further studies are required to validate the concept.