CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Foster MA, Moledina J, Jeffery SL. J. Burn Care Res. 2011; 32(3): 415-420. |
|
Affiliation |
From the Academic Department of Military Surgery and Trauma (ADMST), Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Institute of Research and Development, Birmingham, United Kingdom. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2011, American Burn Association, Publisher Lippincott Williams and Wilkins) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
21422938 |
|
Abstract |
The authors review the etiology of U.K. military burns in light of increasing hybrid warfare. Analysis of the nature of these injured personnel will provide commanders with the evidence to plan for on-going and future operations. Case notes of all U.K. Armed Forces burn injured patients who were evacuated to the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine were reviewed. Demographics, burn severity, pattern, and mortality details were included. There were 134 U.K. military personnel with burns requiring return to the United Kingdom during 2001-2007. The median age was 27 (20-62) years. Overall, 60% of burns seen were "accidental." Burning waste, misuse or disrespect of fuel, and scalds were the most prevalent noncombat burns. Areas commonly burned were the face, legs, and hands. During 2006-2007 in the two major conflicts, more than 59% (n = 36) of the burned patients evacuated to the United Kingdom were injured during combat. Burns sustained in combat represent 5.8% of all combat casualties and were commonly associated with other injuries. Improvised explosive device, minestrike, and rocket-propelled grenade were common causes. The mean TBSA affected for both groups was 5% (1-70). The majority of combat burn injuries have been small in size. Greater provision of flame retardant equipment and clothing may reduce the extent and number of combat burns in the future. The numbers of noncombat burns are being reduced by good military discipline. Language: en |