Cited by 88

Blast-related fracture patterns: a forensic biomechanical approach

Ramasamy, Arul, Hill, Adam M., Masouros, Spyros, Gibb, Iain, Bull, Anthony M. J., Clasper, Jon C.·2011·Journal of The Royal Society Interface

Abstract

Improved protective measures and medical care has increased the survivability from battlefield injuries. In an attempt to reduce the debilitating consequences of blast injury, understanding and mitigating the effects of explosion on the extremities is key. In this study, forensic biomechanical analyses have been applied to determine mechanisms of injury after the traumatic event. The aims of this study were (i) to determine which effects of the explosion are responsible for combat casualty extremity bone injury in two distinct environments, namely open, free-field (open group), and in vehicle or in cover (enclosed group), and (ii) to determine whether patterns of combat casualty bone injury differed between environments. Medical records of casualties admitted to a military hospital in Afghanistan were reviewed over a six-month period. Explosive injuries have been sub-divided traditionally into primary, secondary and tertiary effects. All radiographs were independently reviewed by a military radiologist, a team of military orthopaedic surgeons and a team of academic biomechanists, in order to determine ‘zones of injury’ (ZoIs), and their related mechanisms. Sixty-two combat casualties with 115 ZoIs were identified. Thirty-four casualties in the open group sustained 56 ZoIs; 28 casualties in the enclosed group sustained 59 ZoIs. There was no statistical difference in mean ZoIs per casualty between groups ( p = 0.54). There was a higher proportion of lower limb injuries in the enclosed group compared with the open group ( p < 0.05). Of the casualties in the open group, 1 ZoI was owing to the primary effects of blast, 10 owing to a combination of primary and secondary blast effects, 23 owing to secondary blast effects and 24 owing to tertiary blast effects. In contrast, tertiary blast effects predominated in the enclosed group, accounting for 96 per cent of ZoIs. These data clearly demonstrate two distinct injury groups based upon the casualties' environment. The enclosed environment appears to attenuate the primary and secondary effects of the explosion. However, tertiary blast effects were the predominant mechanism of injury, with severe axial loading to the lower extremity being a characteristic of the fractures seen. The development of future mitigation strategies must focus on reducing all explosion-related injury mechanisms. Integral to this process is an urgent requirement to better understand the behaviour of bone in this unique environment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsif.2010.0476

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. 7 Ramasamy, A., Harrisson, S., Lasrado, I. &amp; Stewart, M. P. 2009 A review of casualties during the Iraqi insurgency 2006-a British field hospital experience. Injury 40 , 493-497. (doi:10.1016 / j.injury.2008.03.028)
  2. 12 Zuckerman, S. 1952 Vulnerability of human targets to fragmenting and blast weapons. Textbook of air armament , pp. 1-243. London, UK: HMSO.
  3. 14 Ramasamy, A., Masouros, S. D., Newell, N., Hill, A. M., Proud, W. G., Brown, K. A., Bull, A. M. J. &amp; Clasper, J. C. In press. In-vehicle extremity injuries from improvised explosive devices: current and future foci. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 366 . (doi:10.1098 / rstb.2010.0219)
  4. 16 Baker, W. 1983 Explosion hazards and evaluation . Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
  5. 17 Dewey, J. M. 1964 The air velocity in blast waves from T.N.T. explosions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 279 , 366-385. (doi:10.1098/rspa.1964.0110) · DOI
  6. 18 Friedlander, F. G. 1946 The diffraction of sound pulses. I. Diffraction by a semi-infinite plane. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 186 , 322-344. (doi:10.1098/rspa.1946.0046) · DOI
  7. 23 Hull, J. B. 1995 An investigation into the mechanism of traumatic amputation by explosive blast. Doctor of medicine thesis, University of Birmingham.
  8. 39 Galloway, A. &amp; Zephro, L. 2007 Skeletal trauma analysis of the lower extremity. In Forensic medicine of the lower extremity (eds J. Rich, D. E. Dean &amp; R. H. Powers). New York, NY: Humana Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ramasamy, A., Hill, A. M., Masouros, S., Gibb, I., Bull, A. M. J., & Clasper, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Imperial Blast Biomechanics and Biophysics Group, Rm 4.28 Royal School of Mines, Imperial College London, South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ, UK
  • Centre for Defence Imaging, Horton Block, Fort Blockhouse, Gosport, Hants, UK
Venue
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
Published
2010-12
Volume
8
Issue
58
Pages
689-698
ISSN
  • 1742-5689
  • 1742-5662
Cited by
88
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review