How Common Are Civilian Blast Injuries in the National Trauma Databank, and What Are the Most Common Mechanisms and Characteristics of Associated Injuries?
Authors: Nunziato Carl A. , Riley Christopher J. , Johnson Anthony E. 
Published: January 2021

Background

Recent military conflicts have produced substantial improvements in the care of service members who experience blast injuries. As conflicts draw down, it is important to preserve and improve skills gained in combat. It is unknown whether civilian blast injuries can serve as a surrogate for military blast trauma. To guide further research, it is crucial to understand the volume, severity, and distribution of civilian blast injury in the civilian population.

Questions/purposes

(1) What proportion of US trauma admissions are a result of blast injury? (2) What are the common mechanisms, and what is the demographic breakdown of civilian patients presenting to trauma centers after blast injuries? (3) What is the severity, and what are the characteristics of injuries sustained by civilian patients after blast injuries?

Methods

We queried the American College of Surgeons National Trauma Databank (NTDB), a national aggregation of trauma registry data which captures robust mechanism of injury and wounding pattern information, for any patient admitted for trauma and an initial mechanism of injury corresponding to a predefined list of ICD-9 and ICD-10 external cause of injury codes related to blast injuries and reported as a proportion of all trauma-related admissions. Mechanisms were categorized into similar groups, and data were collected regarding demographics as well as location and intentionality of blast (that is, unintentional, the result of assault, or self-inflicted). Patient injuries were characterized by ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis codes and sorted according to the body area affected and severity of injury, measured via the Injury Severity Score (ISS). The ISS is a measure of trauma severity, with scores ranging from 1 to 75 points based on injury severity, which is calculated according to injury scores in six separate body domains (head or neck, face, chest, abdomen or pelvis, extremities, external). A score of 1 represents a minor trauma to one region, while a score of 75 indicates injuries deemed nonsurvivable in one or more domains. Data were limited to trauma admissions in 2016.

Results

Patients injured by blast mechanisms represented 0.3% (2682 of 968,843) of patients in NTDB-participating trauma centers who were treated after a blast injury in the year 2016; 86% (2315 of 2682) of these patients were men, and the mean ± SD age was 38 ± 21 years. Blast injuries most commonly occurred after detonation of fireworks (29% [773 of 2682]) or explosion of gas or pressurized containers (27% [732 of 2682]). The most commonly injured area of the body was the upper extremity (33% [894 of 2682]), followed by the face (28% [747 of 2682]), lower extremity (11% [285 of 2682]), thorax (10% [280 of 2682]), and head (10% [259 of 2682]). Fifty-eight percent (1564 of 2682) of patients had at least one burn injury. A total of 2% (51 of 2682) of the injuries were fatal, with a mean ISS score of 6 ± 8; 23% (608 of 2682) of patients presented with injuries classified as severe (ISS > 8).

Conclusion

Civilian blast-associated injuries are not common, but they can be severe, and in many (though not all) respects they seem similar to those described in published case series of military blast victims. Key differences include age and gender (civilian injuries more commonly involve women and older patients than do those in military studies). The potential of civilian blast patient care as a surrogate for study and clinical experience for military surgeons in the interwar period—as recommended by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report—is supported by our preliminary results. Future interventions or training programs would likely need to rely on multisite or targeted partnerships to encounter appropriate numbers of patients with blast injuries.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, prognostic study.