Comparison of Combat and Non-Combat Burns From Ongoing U.S. Military Operations1 1 The opinions or assertions contained herein are solely the views of the authors and should not be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Department of Defense or United States Government.

David S. Kauvar, Leopoldo C. Cancio, Steven Wolf, Charles E. Wade, John B. Holcomb

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Military burns result from either combat or non-combat causes. We compared these etiologies from patients involved in ongoing conflicts to evaluate their impact and provide prevention recommendations. Methods: All military patients with significant burns treated at the United States Army Institute of Surgical Research from April 2003 to May 2005 were reviewed. Injuries were categorized as having resulted from combat or non-combat causes. Demographics, burn severity and pattern, mortality, and early outcomes were compared. Results: There were 273 burn patients seen with 63% injured in combat. A high early rate of non-combat injuries was noted. Feedback on non-combat burn prevention was provided to the combat theater, and the incidence of non-combat burns decreased. Mean age and time from injury to admission did not differ. The majority of combat injuries resulted from explosive device detonation. Waste burning, ammunition handling, and gasoline caused most non-combat injuries. Combat casualties had more associated and inhalation injuries and greater full-thickness burn size; total body surface area burned was equivalent. The hands and the face were the most frequently burned body areas. Mortality was 5% in combat and 2% in non-combat patients. The majority of survivors in both groups returned to military duty. Conclusions: The disparity in full-thickness burn size and incidence of inhalation and associated injuries resulted from differing mechanisms of injury, with explosions and penetrating trauma more common in combat wounds. Despite the severity of combat burns, mortality was low and outcomes generally good. Non-combat burns are preventable and have decreased in incidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)195-200
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Surgical Research
Volume132
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - May 15 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

State Government
Burns
Wounds and Injuries
Inhalation
Mortality
Incidence
Gasoline
Explosions
Body Surface Area
Survivors
Hand
Demography

Keywords

  • burns
  • epidemiology
  • military trauma
  • prevention

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

@article{514fb0af8a05492786927b5c26d41c7c,
title = "Comparison of Combat and Non-Combat Burns From Ongoing U.S. Military Operations1 1 The opinions or assertions contained herein are solely the views of the authors and should not be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Department of Defense or United States Government.",
abstract = "Background: Military burns result from either combat or non-combat causes. We compared these etiologies from patients involved in ongoing conflicts to evaluate their impact and provide prevention recommendations. Methods: All military patients with significant burns treated at the United States Army Institute of Surgical Research from April 2003 to May 2005 were reviewed. Injuries were categorized as having resulted from combat or non-combat causes. Demographics, burn severity and pattern, mortality, and early outcomes were compared. Results: There were 273 burn patients seen with 63{\%} injured in combat. A high early rate of non-combat injuries was noted. Feedback on non-combat burn prevention was provided to the combat theater, and the incidence of non-combat burns decreased. Mean age and time from injury to admission did not differ. The majority of combat injuries resulted from explosive device detonation. Waste burning, ammunition handling, and gasoline caused most non-combat injuries. Combat casualties had more associated and inhalation injuries and greater full-thickness burn size; total body surface area burned was equivalent. The hands and the face were the most frequently burned body areas. Mortality was 5{\%} in combat and 2{\%} in non-combat patients. The majority of survivors in both groups returned to military duty. Conclusions: The disparity in full-thickness burn size and incidence of inhalation and associated injuries resulted from differing mechanisms of injury, with explosions and penetrating trauma more common in combat wounds. Despite the severity of combat burns, mortality was low and outcomes generally good. Non-combat burns are preventable and have decreased in incidence.",
keywords = "burns, epidemiology, military trauma, prevention",
author = "Kauvar, {David S.} and Cancio, {Leopoldo C.} and Steven Wolf and Wade, {Charles E.} and Holcomb, {John B.}",
year = "2006",
month = "5",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.jss.2006.02.043",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "132",
pages = "195--200",
journal = "Journal of Surgical Research",
issn = "0022-4804",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Combat and Non-Combat Burns From Ongoing U.S. Military Operations1 1 The opinions or assertions contained herein are solely the views of the authors and should not be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Department of Defense or United States Government.

AU - Kauvar, David S.

AU - Cancio, Leopoldo C.

AU - Wolf, Steven

AU - Wade, Charles E.

AU - Holcomb, John B.

PY - 2006/5/15

Y1 - 2006/5/15

N2 - Background: Military burns result from either combat or non-combat causes. We compared these etiologies from patients involved in ongoing conflicts to evaluate their impact and provide prevention recommendations. Methods: All military patients with significant burns treated at the United States Army Institute of Surgical Research from April 2003 to May 2005 were reviewed. Injuries were categorized as having resulted from combat or non-combat causes. Demographics, burn severity and pattern, mortality, and early outcomes were compared. Results: There were 273 burn patients seen with 63% injured in combat. A high early rate of non-combat injuries was noted. Feedback on non-combat burn prevention was provided to the combat theater, and the incidence of non-combat burns decreased. Mean age and time from injury to admission did not differ. The majority of combat injuries resulted from explosive device detonation. Waste burning, ammunition handling, and gasoline caused most non-combat injuries. Combat casualties had more associated and inhalation injuries and greater full-thickness burn size; total body surface area burned was equivalent. The hands and the face were the most frequently burned body areas. Mortality was 5% in combat and 2% in non-combat patients. The majority of survivors in both groups returned to military duty. Conclusions: The disparity in full-thickness burn size and incidence of inhalation and associated injuries resulted from differing mechanisms of injury, with explosions and penetrating trauma more common in combat wounds. Despite the severity of combat burns, mortality was low and outcomes generally good. Non-combat burns are preventable and have decreased in incidence.

AB - Background: Military burns result from either combat or non-combat causes. We compared these etiologies from patients involved in ongoing conflicts to evaluate their impact and provide prevention recommendations. Methods: All military patients with significant burns treated at the United States Army Institute of Surgical Research from April 2003 to May 2005 were reviewed. Injuries were categorized as having resulted from combat or non-combat causes. Demographics, burn severity and pattern, mortality, and early outcomes were compared. Results: There were 273 burn patients seen with 63% injured in combat. A high early rate of non-combat injuries was noted. Feedback on non-combat burn prevention was provided to the combat theater, and the incidence of non-combat burns decreased. Mean age and time from injury to admission did not differ. The majority of combat injuries resulted from explosive device detonation. Waste burning, ammunition handling, and gasoline caused most non-combat injuries. Combat casualties had more associated and inhalation injuries and greater full-thickness burn size; total body surface area burned was equivalent. The hands and the face were the most frequently burned body areas. Mortality was 5% in combat and 2% in non-combat patients. The majority of survivors in both groups returned to military duty. Conclusions: The disparity in full-thickness burn size and incidence of inhalation and associated injuries resulted from differing mechanisms of injury, with explosions and penetrating trauma more common in combat wounds. Despite the severity of combat burns, mortality was low and outcomes generally good. Non-combat burns are preventable and have decreased in incidence.

KW - burns

KW - epidemiology

KW - military trauma

KW - prevention

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33646095753&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33646095753&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jss.2006.02.043

DO - 10.1016/j.jss.2006.02.043

M3 - Article

C2 - 16580688

AN - SCOPUS:33646095753

VL - 132

SP - 195

EP - 200

JO - Journal of Surgical Research

JF - Journal of Surgical Research

SN - 0022-4804

IS - 2

ER -