Notice Qualified requesters Qualified requesters may obtain copies from the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Orders will be expedited if placed through the librarian or other person designated to request documents from DTIC. Change of address Organizations receiving reports from the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory on automatic mailing lists should confirm correct address when corresponding about laboratory reports. Disposition Destroy this document when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. Disclaimer The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation. Citation of trade names in this report does not constitute an official Department of the Army endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial items.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 18. NUMBER OF PAGES 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
Preface The data in this technical report were presented in a poster, entitled Ocular Battle Injuries among U.S. Military Personnel, 2002-2011, at the Fifth Military Vision Symposium on Ocular and Vision Injury in Boston, Massachusetts, September 2012. Michael Lo, M.S.P.H., LTC José E. Capó-Aponte, O.D., Ph.D., F.A.A.O., Dan Wise, M.Ed., Daryl Simpson, B.S.M.E., Amy Barrett, B.A., Robert Giffin, M.S.O.H., Kraig Pakulski, M.Ed., and Leonard A. Temme, Ph.D. were poster contributors. The poster is included in appendix A of this report. The authors wish to acknowledge Dr. Nancy Molter and her team at the Joint Trauma System, U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research (USAISR) for granting access to the data used in this study. iii
Table of contents Page Introduction... 1 Methods... 2 Results... 3 OBI individual cases... 3 OBI mechanisms, severity, type, and diagnoses... 6 Other head injuries co-occurring with OBI... 7 Discussion... 8 Limitations... 9 Conclusions... 9 Recommendations... 10 References... 11 Appendix A. Ocular battle injuries among U.S. military personnel, 2002-2011.... 13 Appendix B. Deployed personnel by military operation, service, and calendar year.... 14 Appendix C. Additional analyses.... 15 List of figures Page 1. OBI cases by military operation.... 4 2. OBI cases and deployed personnel by calendar year (OIF / OND).... 4 3. OBI cases and deployed personnel by calendar year (OEF)... 5 4. OBI cases by service.... 5 5. OBI cases by event mechanism.... 6 6. OBI cases by injury severity.... 6 iv
Table of contents (continued) List of figures Page 7. OBI cases by injury type, severity, and ICD-9-CM code.... 7 8. OBI cases and other head injury cases.... 8 B1. Deployed personnel by service and calendar year as of 30 June (OIF / OND).... 14 B2. Deployed personnel by service and calendar year as of 30 June (OEF)... 14 C1. OBI case rates per 100,000 deployed personnel by military operation and calendar year... 15 C2. OBI cases with TBI by TBI type.... 16 C3. OBI cases with acoustic injuries by acoustic injury type.... 16 C4. Mean eye injury severity by mounted status and calendar year.... 17 C5. Percentage of blast-injured OBI cases by military operation and calendar year.... 17 List of tables 1. Scope.... 2 2. Eye injury severity.... 3 v
Introduction Vision loss resulting from ocular battle injuries (OBI) is particularly disabling to Warfighters because of their reliance upon acute vision to engage effectively in combat operations (Ari, 2006; National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research, 2007). The eyes are injured disproportionately more often and more severely than other parts of the body such as the torso and abdomen, which are relatively well-protected by body armor, since Warfighters must expose their heads from behind cover to engage an enemy (Ari, 2006; Thomas et al., 2009; Weichel et al., 2008). This action subjects their eyes to possible blast and/or projectile injuries, especially when they do not wear ocular personal protective equipment (PPE) (Thomas et al., 2009). The blast impact or projectile force on the eye is concentrated over a very small surface area, compared to a similar force impact on other parts of the body. This concentrated force is particularly injurious to the eye (Thomas et al., 2009; Wong and Seet, 1997). A retrospective OBI analysis is now timely, since Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) / Operation New Dawn (OND) ended in 2011, while Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), begun in 2001, is still ongoing (Burns, 2012; Torreon, 2011). Evaluating the effectiveness of ocular PPE used during these conflicts will help to improve ocular PPE use in future conflicts. Therefore, in conjunction with the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research (USAISR), the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (USAARL), Visual Sciences Branch (VSB) is conducting research into Warfighter PPE improvement to support the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command s (USAMRMC) Military Operational Medicine Research Program, Task Area A2: Protect the Warrior from ocular and facial injury. In response to the VSB chief s request for information (RFI) submitted to the Joint Trauma Analysis and Prevention of Injury in Combat (JTAPIC) program, USAARL s Operational Survival Analysis Section (OSAS) studied OBI among U.S. military personnel as a starting point for this research. Upon review of the RFI, which outlined the data analyses requested, USAMRMC s Human Research Protection Office (HRPO) determined this study did not involve a human research activity, and therefore, no further HRPO review 1 or Institutional Review Board (IRB) review was needed (S. Donahue, personal communication, September 1, 2011). This technical report describes the OBI study and reflects content presented in a poster (appendix A) at the Fifth Military Vision Symposium on Ocular and Vision Injury in Boston, Massachusetts, September 2012. The data of annually deployed personnel for each military operation reported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense are summarized in appendix B. Additional content not presented in the poster is included in appendix C. The study objectives were to: (1) describe OBI incidence among U.S. military personnel during OEF, OIF, and OND, (2) describe OBI mechanisms, severity, type, and diagnoses, and (3) describe other head injuries co-occurring with OBI. Finally, this report discusses the study findings, limitations, conclusions, and recommendations. 1 HRPO reviewed and approved a separate study protocol that one of the study coauthors (José E. Capó-Aponte) submitted for a related research project. 1
Methods Table 1 outlines the study scope. We obtained OBI data from the Joint Theater Trauma Registry (JTTR), a repository of all Department of Defense (DOD) trauma patient data collected by the Joint Trauma System, USAISR, a JTAPIC program partner. In response to the VSB chief s RFI, USAISR data analysts abstracted and sent to the study authors de-identified JTTR records of U.S. military personnel treated for OBI at a level 3 (combat surgical hospital, Air Force theater hospital, or expeditionary medical facility) and higher military medical treatment facility from March 2002 through December 2011. The study authors analyzed the data at both the individual case level and injury level, and reported the frequencies and percentages of variable values describing OBI incidence, mechanisms, severity, type, diagnoses, and other head injuries co-occurring with OBI. Table 1. Scope. Parameter Description Study design Retrospective cross-sectional study of individual and injury level data. Population U.S. military personnel with OBI. Dates March 2002 through December 2011. Data sources JTTR, Joint Trauma System, USAISR (OBI data); Office of the Secretary of Defense (deployed personnel data). Distribution OEF, OIF, and OND. Inclusion criteria OBI patients receiving level 3 (combat surgical hospital, Air Force Theater hospital, or expeditionary medical facility) and higher care. To calculate annual OBI case rates, the study authors obtained annual deployed personnel data for each military operation as of 30 June each year (Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2012). OIF deployed personnel data are available since 2003, while OEF deployed personnel data are available since 2005. For each military operation, annual OBI cases were divided by annual deployed personnel numbers and multiplied by 100,000 to calculate annual OBI case rates per 100,000 deployed personnel. We calculated OBI severity using an eye injury scale of 1 (least severe) to 4 (most severe) (table 2) based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) eye injury diagnosis codes. Ocular researchers graded each eye injury diagnosis code s severity level based on the need for eye surgery and/or potential for vision loss each eye injury can cause (Duma et al., 2002; Thomas et al., 2009). We chose to use this eye injury scale 2
because it is more informative for grading eye injury severity than the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), which grades eye injuries on a scale of 1 (minor) to 3 (serious), based on their overall threat to life (Duma et al., 2002; Trauma.org, 1995). Because eye injuries are usually not lifethreatening, they are assigned low AIS scores of 1 (minor) or 2 (moderate) (Gennarelli and Wodzin, 2005), no matter how serious the eye injury is. Thus, the AIS is less informative for grading eye injury severity than the 4-level scale we chose to use. If an OBI patient sustained more than one eye injury, only the most severe eye injury was included in the individual level data analysis. Table 2. Eye injury severity. Severity level Description ICD-9-CM code Description 1 Least severe 870.2 Laceration of eyelid involving lacrimal passages 921.1 Periocular contusion 2 Less severe 918.1 Superficial corneal injury 918.9 Superficial eye injury 3 More severe 871.0 Ocular laceration without prolapse 871.4 Laceration of the eye, unspecified 871.7 Ocular penetration, unspecified 921.3 Eyeball contusion 940.4 Other corneal / conjunctival burn 4 Most severe 871.2 Eye rupture with tissue loss 871.3 Eye avulsion 950.0 Optic nerve injury Results OBI individual cases This study included 1732 total OBI individual cases. Figure 1 breaks out these cases by military operation. Approximately 69 percent occurred during OIF and OND, and 31 percent occurred during OEF. 3
OEF 536, 31% OIF / OND 1196, 69% Figure 1. OBI cases by military operation. N = 1732 individuals Figure 2 breaks out OBI individual cases by calendar year for OIF / OND. These cases decreased 95 percent from 2004 to 2010, coinciding with a 58 percent reduction in deployed personnel. OBI cases (bar chart) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 144 298 229 228 203 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 52 24 14 4 0 Deployed personnel (line chart) Year N = 1196 individuals Figure 2. OBI cases and deployed personnel by calendar year (OIF / OND). Figure 3 breaks out OBI individual cases by calendar year for OEF. These cases rose 284 percent from 2008 to 2010, coinciding with a 202 percent increase in deployed personnel. 4
OBI cases (bar chart) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 5 3 20 13 23 31 43 90 165 143 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Deployed personnel (line chart) Year N = 536 individuals Figure 3. OBI cases and deployed personnel by calendar year (OEF). Figure 4 breaks out OBI individual cases by service. Soldiers made up 72 percent of cases, followed by Marines (24 percent). Army 1246, 72% Marines 409, 24% Navy 44, 2% Coast Guard 1, <1% Air Force 32, 2% N = 1732 individuals Figure 4. OBI cases by service. 5
OBI mechanisms, severity, type, and diagnoses Figure 5 breaks out OBI individual cases by event mechanism (injury cause). Blasts from explosives caused 92 percent of cases. Explosives 1598, 92% Gunshot wound 98, 6% Other 36, 2% N = 1732 individuals Figure 5. OBI cases by event mechanism. Figure 6 breaks out OBI individual cases by injury severity. Approximately 63 percent of cases had a severity level of 3 (more severe) or 4 (most severe). Level 1 141, 8% Level 4 327, 19% Level 3 759, 44% Level 2 505, 29% Level 1 least severe Level 2 less severe Level 3 more severe Level 4 most severe N = 1732 individuals Figure 6. OBI cases by injury severity. 6
Figure 7 breaks out OBI at the injury level by injury type, severity, and ICD-9-CM code. Fifty percent (1611 of 3222) of all OBI were open wounds, and 86 percent (314 of 365) of OBI with the highest injury severity 4 (most severe), were also open wounds. Number of injuries 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 n = 1611 871.0 (n = 1042) 871.4 (n = 1) 871.7 (n = 234) 871.2 (n = 204) 871.3 (n = 110) 870.2 (n = 20) n = 773 921.1 (n = 361) 921.3 (n = 412) n = 749 918.1 (n = 540) 918.9 (n = 209) Level 1 least severe Level 2 less severe Level 3 more severe Level 4 most severe 950.0 (n = 51) 940.4 (n = 38) Open wound Contusion Superficial Optic nerve Burn Injury type N = 3222 injuries Figure 7. OBI cases by injury type, severity, and ICD-9-CM code. Other head injuries co-occurring with OBI Figure 8 shows the overlap of OBI individual cases with other head injury individual cases. Overall, 84 percent of OBI cases had one or more other head injury type(s) (1452 out of 1732 individuals). Approximately 71 percent of OBI cases had another facial injury (1230 out of 1732 individuals), 48 percent had a traumatic brain injury (TBI) (832 out of 1732 individuals), and 25 percent had an acoustic injury (427 out of 1732 individuals). 7
Number of individuals 0 500 1000 1500 2000 OBI and facial, TBI, or acoustic injury 280 16% 1452 84% N = 1732 individuals Head injury type OBI and facial injury OBI and TBI 502 29% 900 52% 1230 71% 832 48% N = 1732 individuals N = 1732 individuals OBI and acoustic injury 1305 75% 427 25% N = 1732 individuals OBI only Both Figure 8. OBI cases and other head injury cases. Discussion The results show OBI individual cases mirrored deployed personnel numbers: the greater the number of deployed personnel, the higher the OBI incidence. OBI cases were higher in OIF / OND (figure 2) than in OEF (figure 3), and higher among Soldiers and Marines than in other Armed Services (figure 4), due to the greater number of deployed personnel in OIF / OND and from the Army and Marine Corps to support these operations (figures B1 and B2). Both annual OBI cases (figures 2 and 3) and annual OBI incidence rates per 100,000 deployed personnel (figure C1) rose or fell as annual deployed personnel numbers rose or fell. The results also show OBI severity was associated with eye injury type (figure 7), and hence the need for eye surgery and/or potential for vision loss. Eyelid injuries (lacerations and contusions) were assigned severity level 1 (least severe). These were the least severe injuries with less need for eye surgery, and the lowest potential for vision loss. Superficial cornea injuries and other superficial eye injuries were assigned severity level 2 (less severe). These were more severe than eyelid injuries, with some potential for vision loss. Eye lacerations, eye penetrations, eyeball contusions, and cornea burns were assigned severity level 3 (more severe). These were even more severe injuries, since they require eye surgery. Eye ruptures, eye avulsions, and optic nerve injuries were assigned severity level 4 (most severe). These were the most severe injuries, since they resulted in vision loss. Half of all OBIs were open wounds, and of these, 99 percent were assigned severity levels 3 (more severe) or 4 (most severe). Over 90 percent of total OBI cases resulted from explosive blasts (figure 5), the most common injury cause in OIF / OND, and OEF. Not surprisingly, 84 percent of OBI cases had another head injury type (facial, TBI, or acoustic injury), in particular facial injury (71 percent of OBI cases) (figure 8). Of the 832 OBI cases sustaining a TBI, 16 percent sustained a type 1 8
(most severe) TBI, 84 percent sustained a type 2 (less severe) TBI, and less than 1 percent sustained a type 3 (least severe) TBI 2 (figure C2). Of the 427 OBI cases sustaining an acoustic injury, 95 percent sustained a ruptured eardrum (figure C3). Thus, the typical OBI patient was complex, sustaining multiple traumatic head injuries, most often from explosive blasts. This study was limited by the following: Limitations a. No data on ocular PPE use were available at the time of this study. This hampered our ability to evaluate ocular PPE use compliance and effectiveness to mitigate or prevent OBI. However, the mean eye injury severity of mounted casualties was lower than that of dismounted casualties in almost any given year, and generally showed an annual downward trend (figure C4). This mitigation might be attributable to increased ocular PPE use (Hilber, 2011; Thomas et al., 2009) and/or Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles fielded in theater during this study s time frame (Lamb and Scudder, 2012). When available, ocular PPE use data may enable a more definitive analysis of its effectiveness to mitigate or prevent OBI. b. Exposure data were limited to the injury cause, such as explosives or gunshot wound, in the JTTR data base. When available, information such as net explosive weight and distance from explosive blast may enable the modeling of a dose-response relationship between blast exposure and OBI severity. c. Because the JTTR data base is dynamic and is retroactively updated as new records or information become available, the 2011 data available at the time of this study may be underreported due to a reporting lag. This may explain the apparent decrease in OBI cases in OEF from 2010 to 2011, despite an increase in OEF deployed personnel from 2010 to 2011 (figure 3), and an increase in the percentage of blast-injured OBI cases in OEF from 2010 to 2011 (figure C5). Conclusions As a result of this retrospective study of OBI incidence among U.S. military personnel, we make the following conclusions: a. OBI case numbers and case rates increase or decrease proportionally as deployed personnel numbers increase or decrease in proportion to threat levels and injury risk. 2 According to Barell et al. (2002), TBI types are classified as follows: type 1 TBI is defined as an intracranial injury, a head injury with moderate or prolonged loss of consciousness, or an optic nerve injury, type 2 TBI is defined as a head injury with loss of consciousness of less than 1 hour or of an unknown or unspecified duration, with no evidence of intracranial injury, and type 3 TBI is defined as a head injury with no loss of consciousness or evidence of intracranial injury. 9
b. The high co-occurrence of OBI with other head injury types results from the predominance of explosive blasts (92 percent) as an OBI cause, resulting in the constellation of co-occurring ocular, acoustic, facial, and brain injuries seen. c. Increased ocular PPE use and MRAP vehicle deployment may mitigate eye injury severity of mounted casualties. d. Further analysis is needed to model the relationship between blast exposure, OBI severity, and the mitigating effect of ocular PPE use by linking together and analyzing data sets containing exposure, eye injury, and ocular PPE use information. Recommendations Based on the study results and conclusions above, we make the following recommendations to increase combat ocular readiness in future conflicts: a. Medical planners should participate in military operational planning and decision making to maintain situational awareness for allocating medical resources commensurate with threat levels and injury risk to deployed personnel (Davis and Bricknell, 2012). b. Health care providers should evaluate and treat blast-injured OBI patients with a high index of suspicion for other occult head injuries, in particular, closed-eye ocular injuries and TBI (Cockerham et al., 2011). c. Military leaders should leverage findings of combat ocular injury studies, such as this one, to support their enforcement of mandatory ocular PPE use in accordance with Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet 40-506 (Department of the Army, 2009). d. Military units such as Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier and USAISR should collect and make available exposure and ocular PPE use data. These data may be linked to JTTR records to enable military medical researchers to model the relationship between blast exposure, OBI severity, and ocular PPE use. 10
References Ari, A. B. 2006. Eye injuries on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan: Public health implications. Journal of the American Optometric Association. 77: 329-339. Barell, V., Aharonson-Daniel, L., Fingerhut, L. A., Mackenzie, E. J., Ziv, A., Boyko, V., Abargel, A., Avitzour, M., and Heruti, R. 2002. An introduction to the Barell body region by nature of injury diagnosis matrix. Injury prevention. 8: 91-96. Burns, R. 2012. New Afghan war phase, with no decisive end seen. Retrieved from http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/afghanistan/new-afghan-war-phase-with-nodecisive-end-seen-1.194799. Cockerham, G. C., Rice, T. A., Hewes, E. H., Cockerham, K. P., Lemke, S., Wang, G., Lin, R. C., Glynn-Milley, C., and Zumhagen, L. 2011. Closed-eye ocular injuries in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The New England journal of medicine. 364: 2172-2173. Davis, S. L., and Bricknell, M. 2012. Developing an operational casualty estimate in a multinational headquarters to inform and drive medical resource allocation. The United States Army Medical Department journal. (October-December) 51-57. Department of the Army. 2009. The Army vision conservation and readiness program. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. DA Pamphlet 40-506. Duma, S. M., Jernigan, M. V., Stitzel, J. D., Herring, I. P., Crowley, J. S., Brozoski, F. T., and Bass, C. R. 2002. The effect of frontal air bags on eye injury patterns in automobile crashes. Archives of ophthalmology. 120: 1517-1522. Gennarelli, T. A., and Wodzin, E., eds. 2005. Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005. Barrington, IL: Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Hilber, D. J. 2011. Eye injuries, active component, U.S. armed forces, 2000-2010. Medical surveillance monthly report. 18: 2-7. Lamb, C. J., and Scudder, S. 2012. Why the MRAP is worth the money. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138049/christopher-j-lamb-and-sally-scudder/why-themrap-is-worth-the-money. National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research. 2007. National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research (NAEVR) request to maintain eye and vision research eligibility in the peer reviewed medical research program in fiscal year (FY) 2008 DOD appropriations. Retrieved from http://www.eyeresearch.org/naevr_action/cdmrp08.html. Office of the Secretary of Defense. 2012. Military personnel statistics. Retrieved from http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/military/miltop.htm. 11
Thomas, R., McManus, J. G., Johnson, A., Mayer, P., Wade, C., and Holcomb, J. B. 2009. Ocular injury reduction from ocular protection use in current combat operations. The journal of trauma injury, infection, and critical care. 66: S99-S103. Torreon, B. S. 2011. U.S. periods of war and dates of current conflicts. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. CRS Report RS21405. Trauma.org. 1995. Abbreviated Injury Scale. Retrieved from http://www.trauma.org/archive/scores/ais.html. Weichel, E. D., Colyer, M. H., Ludlow, S. E., Bower, K. S., and Eisman, A. S. 2008. Combat ocular trauma visual outcomes during operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. Ophthalmology. 115: 2235-2245. Wong, T. Y., and Seet, B. 1997. A behavioral analysis of eye protection use by soldiers. Military medicine. 162: 744-748. 12
13 Ocular Battle Injuries Among U.S. Military Personnel, 2002-2011 Michael Lo, 1,2 M.S.P.H., LTC José Capo-Aponte, 1 O.D., Ph.D., F.A.A.O., Dan Wise, 1,2 M.Ed., Daryl Simpson, 1,2 B.S.M.E., Amy Barrett, 1,2 B.A., Bob Giffin, 1,3 M.S.O.H., Kraig Pakulski, 1,3 M.Ed., and Leonard Temme, 1 Ph.D. 1 United States Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Fort Rucker, AL 2 Henry M. Jackson Foundation, Inc., Bethesda, MD 3 Axiom Group, Inc., Huntsville, AL Purpose Results Discussion Individual OBI cases in OIF / OND declined 95 percent This poster describes the incidence of ocular battle injuries Figure 1. OBI cases by Figure 2. OBI cases and deployed Figure 3. OBI cases and deployed from 2004 to 2010, coinciding with a 58 percent reduction (OBI) among U.S. military personnel to inform researchers into military operation. personnel by calendar year (OIF / OND). personnel by calendar year (OEF). in deployed personnel 2 (figure 2). Increased ocular PPE the effectiveness of ocular personal protective equipment 600 250,000 600 250,000 use 3 and fielding of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (PPE). Methods 500 500 200,000 200,000 (MRAP) vehicles 4 during this period may also have Table 1. Scope. contributed to this decline. OBI cases in OEF rose 284 400 400 OEF 150,000 150,000 percent from 2008 to 2010, coinciding with a 202 percent Parameter Description 536 31% 300 300 increase in deployed personnel 2 (figure 3). Ninety-two Cross-sectional study of individual and injury 100,000 100,000 OIF / OND 200 200 percent of OBI cases were injured by blasts from Study design level data. Eye injury severity was calculated explosives (figure 5). Fifty percent (1611 of 3222) of all on a scale of one to four 1 1196 298 229 228 (table 2). 203 50,000 50,000 69% 100 100 144 165 143 OBI were open wounds, and 86 percent (314 of 365) of 0 52 24 14 4 5 3 20 13 23 31 43 90 Population U.S. military personnel with OBI. 0 0 0 0 OBI with the highest injury severity [4] were also open Dates March 2002 through December 2011. N = 1732 N = 1196 N = 536 wounds (figure 7). Seventy-one percent of OBI cases individuals Year individuals Year individuals Joint Theater Trauma Registry, Joint Trauma also sustained another facial injury (figure 8). System/United States Army Institute of Limitation Data sources Figure 4. OBI cases by service. Figure 5. OBI cases by Figure 6. OBI cases by Surgical Research (OBI); Office of the No data on ocular PPE use were available at the time of event mechanism. injury severity. Secretary of Defense (deployed personnel). this study. Conclusions (See table 2 for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), 141 legend). Blast exposure was the predominant cause of OBI Distribution Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Marines, 327 8% among U.S. military personnel. 409, 24% Navy, 44, 19% Operation New Dawn (OND). 2% Gunshot When available, data on ocular PPE use will enable wound, 98, OBI patients receiving level 3 care (combat Coast 505 6% analysis of its effectiveness to mitigate or prevent OBI. Inclusion Guard, 1, Explosives, 29% surgical hospital, Air Force theater hospital, Army, 1246, <1% 1598, 92% Recommendations criteria or expeditionary medical facility) and higher. 72% Other, 36, 2% Require enforcement of mandatory ocular PPE use in Air Force, 759 32, 2% 44% accordance with Department of the Army Pamphlet 40-506 5. Table 2. Eye injury severity. Collect ocular PPE use data to assess PPE effectiveness. N = 1732 N = 1732 Severity International Classification N = 1732 Description individuals individuals individuals References level of Diseases-9 (ICD-9) codes Skin, eyelid, or orbit 870.2 (eyelid laceration) Figure 7. OBI by injury type, severity, and ICD-9 code. Figure 8. OBI cases with facial injuries, traumatic [1] area soft tissue 921.1 (eyelid contusion) brain injuries (TBI), or acoustic injuries. [2] Eye, less severe [3] Eye, more severe [4] Eye, most severe 918.1 (superficial injury of cornea), 918.9 (other superficial eye injury) 871.0, 871.4 (eye laceration) 871.7 (eye penetration) 921.3 (eyeball contusion) 940.4 (burn of cornea) 871.2 (eye rupture) 871.3 (eye avulsion) 950.0 (optic nerve injury) Number of injuries 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 n=1611 871.0 (n=1042) 871.4 (n=1) 871.7 (n=234) 871.2 (n=204) 871.3 (n=110) 870.2 (n=20) n=773 921.1 (n=361) 921.3 (n=412) OBI cases (bar chart) n=749 918.1 (n=540) 918.9 (n=209) Open wound Contusion Superficial Optic nerve Burn Injury type 950.0 (n=51) 940.4 (n=38) OBI with facial injury 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 The views, opinions, and/or findings on this poster are those of the authors and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army (DA) position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official DA endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial items. For reprints or questions, please contact usaarl.osab@us.army.mil. (See table 2 for legend). N = 3222 injuries Head injury type Deployed personnel (line chart) OBI with TBI OBI with acoustic injury OBI cases (bar chart) 502 (29%) 900 (52%) Number of individuals 1305 (75%) 1230 (71%) 832 (48%) 427 (25%) OBI only Both N = 1732 individuals Deployed personnel (line chart) 1. Duma, S. M., Jernigan, M. V., Stitzel, J. D., Herring, I. P., Crowley, J. S., Brozoski, F. T., and Bass, C. R. 2002. The effect of frontal air bags on eye injury patterns in automobile crashes. Archives of ophthalmology. 120: 1517-1522. 2. Office of the Secretary of Defense. 2012. Military personnel statistics. Retrieved from http://siadapp.dmdc. osd.mil/personnel/military/miltop.htm. 3. Hilber, D. J. 2011. Eye injuries, active component, U.S. armed forces, 2000-2010. Medical surveillance monthly report. 18: 2-7. 4. Lamb, C. J., and Scudder, S. 2012. Why the MRAP is worth the money. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs. com. 5. Department of the Army. 2009. The Army vision conservation and readiness program. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. DA Pamphlet 40-506. Ocular battle injuries among U.S. military personnel, 2002-2011. Appendix A. 13
Appendix B. Deployed personnel by military operation, service, and calendar year. Percentage of deployed personnel 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Army Marines Navy Air Force 237,235 190,949 169,200 165,700 202,100 183,100 171,500 80,650 91,700 7% 10% 10% 12% 11% 11% 12% 10% 8% 3% 9% 9% <1% 10% 11% 14% 11% 12% 17% 14% 14% 13% 13% 11% 76% 63% 67% 62% 62% 64% 66% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year (OND only) Figure B1. Deployed personnel by service and calendar year as of 30 June (OIF / OND). 87% 17% 24% 3% 57% Percentage of deployed personnel 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Army Marines Navy Air Force 19,500 23,300 24,800 31,700 59,000 95,800 111,700 14% 18% 19% 16% 13% 10% 10% 2% 7% 5% 7% 4% 2% 4% 5% <1% 1% 11% 18% 20% 18% 77% 77% 77% Figure B2. Deployed personnel by service and calendar year as of 30 June (OEF). 68% 64% 63% 66% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year 14
Appendix C. Additional analyses. Figure C1 shows OBI case rates per 100,000 deployed personnel for OIF / OND, and OEF by calendar year. The rate for OIF / OND deployed personnel was highest in 2004 (156.1 per 100,000) and the rate for OEF deployed personnel was highest in 2010 (172.2 per 100,000). OIF / OND OEF Case rate per 100,000 200 160 120 80 40 0 172.2 156.1 152.5 135.3 137.6 125.0 135.6 128.0 98.7 100.4 66.7 60.7 28.4 14.0 17.4 4.4 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year N = 1704 individuals Figure C1. OBI case rates per 100,000 deployed personnel by military operation and calendar year. Figure C2 shows OBI cases with TBI by TBI type. According to Barell et al. (2002), TBI types are classified as follows: type 1 (most severe) TBI is defined as an intracranial injury, a head injury with moderate or prolonged loss of consciousness, or an optic nerve injury, type 2 (less severe) TBI is defined as a head injury with loss of consciousness of less than 1 hour or of an unknown or unspecified duration, with no evidence of intracranial injury, and type 3 (least severe) TBI is defined as a head injury with no loss of consciousness or evidence of intracranial injury. 15
Type 3 1, <1% Type 1 134, 16% Type 2 697, 84% Figure C2. OBI cases with TBI by TBI type. N = 832 individuals Figure C3 shows OBI cases with acoustic injuries by acoustic injury type. Of 427 individual OBI cases sustaining an acoustic injury, 95 percent sustained a ruptured eardrum. Ruptured eardrum 391, 92% Ruptured eardrum with other injury 15, 3% Other injury 21, 5% N = 427 individuals Figure C3. OBI cases with acoustic injuries by acoustic injury type. 16
Figure C4 shows the mean eye injury severity of mounted and dismounted casualties by calendar year. Mean eye injury severity of mounted casualties was lower than that of dismounted casualties in every year except 2003. Mean eye injury severity of mounted casualties also showed a general downward trend in every year except 2010. Mean eye injury severity 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 Mounted Dismounted 2.75 2.83 2.84 2.76 2.67 2.67 2.71 2.51 2.55 2.60 2.57 2.56 2.40 2.47 2.48 2.53 2.38 2.22 2.19 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year N = 2144 injuries Figure C4. Mean eye injury severity by mounted status and calendar year. Figure C5 shows the percentage of blast-injured OBI cases for OIF / OND, and OEF by calendar year, which remained high and relatively constant throughout this study s time frame. Percentage of OBI cases 100% 80% 60% OIF / OND OEF 100% 100% 96% 94% 90% 91% 92% 92% 88% 85% 84% 95% 95% 91% 94% 88% 79% 100% 97% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year N = 1732 individuals Figure C5. Percentage of blast-injured OBI cases by military operation and calendar year. 17