PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Shane Smith
AU  - Melissa Devine
AU  - Joseph Taddeo
AU  - Vivian Charles McAlister
TI  - Injury profile suffered by targets of antipersonnel improvised explosive devices: prospective cohort study
AID  - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014697
DP  - 2017 Jul 01
TA  - BMJ Open
PG  - e014697
VI  - 7
IP  - 7
4099  - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/7/e014697.short
4100  - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/7/e014697.full
SO  - BMJ Open2017 Jul 01; 7
AB  - Objective To describe pattern 1 injuries caused by the antipersonnel improvised explosive device (AP-IED) in comparison to those previously described for antipersonnel mines (APM).Design Prospective cohort study of 100 consecutive pedestrian victims of an AP-IED, with traumatic amputation without regard for gender, nationality or military status.Setting Multinational Medical Unit at Kandahar Air Field, Afghanistan.Participants One hundred consecutive patients, all male, 6–44 years old.Main outcome measures The details of injuries were recorded to describe the pattern and characterise the injuries suffered by the target of AP-IEDs. The level of amputation, the level of soft tissue injury, the fracture pattern (including pelvic fractures) as well as perineal, gluteal, genital and other injuries were recorded.Results Victims of AP-IED were more likely, compared with APM victims, to have multiple amputations (70.0% vs 10.4%; p<0.001) or genital injury (26% vs 13%; p=0.007). Multiple amputations occurred in 70 patients: 5 quadruple amputations, 27 triple amputations and 38 double amputations. Pelvic fracture occurred in 21 victims, all but one of whom had multiple amputations. Severe perineal, gluteal or genital injuries were present in 46 patients. Severe soft tissue injury was universal, with injection of contaminated soil along tissue planes well above entry sites. There were 13 facial injuries, 9 skull fractures and 3 traumatic brain injuries. Eleven eye injuries were seen; none of the victims with eye injuries were wearing eye protection. The casualty fatality rate was at least 19%. The presence of more than one amputation was associated with a higher rate of pelvic fracture (28.6% vs 3.3%; p=0.005) and perineal–gluteal injury (32.6% vs 11.1%; p=0.009).Conclusion The injury pattern suffered by the target of the AP-IED is markedly worse than that of conventional APM. Pelvic binders and tourniquets should be applied at the point of injury to patients with multiple amputations or perineal injuries.