With the changing conditions of war, maxillofacial injuries are observed more frequently. Particularly in urban areas, high-energy explosive devices (HEEDs), such as improvised explosive devices, are often used alongside long-barreled weapons (LBWs). It is important to use trauma scoring systems and a multidisciplinary approach for medically and accurately responding to the trauma patient in a timely manner. This study aimed to compare the Military Combat Injury Scale (MCIS) and Military Functional Incapacity Scale (MFIS) between injuries sustained by LBWs or HEEDs and to share experiences of an operational field hospital.
Medical data of 84 patients admitted to an operational field hospital with maxillofacial and cervical injuries sustained by LBWs and HEEDs between July 27, 2015, and July 22, 2016 were reviewed. MCIS and MFIS scores were calculated for all patients; records of the qualifying patients were studied for the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores and injury sites. The patients were divided into two groups according to the device/weapon causing the injury: injuries sustained by LBWs in group I and those sustained by HEEDs in group II.
All patients were males, with a mean age of 28.75 (range 20-58) years. The average GCS score was 13.4, but it was lower than 15 in 16 (19%) of the patients. There was no statistically significant difference in MCIS scores between the LBW and HEED groups (p=0.206). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in MFIS scores between the LBW and HEED groups (p=0.238).
Maxillofacial and cervical region injuries are increasing in modern conflicts that are usually located in urban areas. Injuries sustained by HEEDs as well as those sustained by LBWs in the maxillofacial area are morbid and mortal. Rapid and comprehensive intervention is life-saving and helping the patient to further trauma treatment.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2018.
All research outputs
#31,228,352
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi Turkish journal of trauma emergency surgery TJTES
#205
of 323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#409,497
of 462,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi Turkish journal of trauma emergency surgery TJTES
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 323 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 462,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.
