Blast Injury in the Spine: Dynamic Response Index Is Not an Appropriate Model for Predicting Injury.

BACKGROUND

Improvised explosive devices are a common feature of recent asymmetric conflicts and there is a persistent landmine threat to military and humanitarian personnel. Assessment of injury risk to the spine in vehicles subjected to explosions was conducted using a standardized model, the Dynamic Response Index (DRI). However, the DRI was intended for evaluating aircraft ejection seats and has not been validated in blast conditions.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether the injury patterns seen in blast are similar to those in aircraft ejection and therefore whether a single injury prediction model can be used for both situations.

METHODS

UK military victims of mounted blast (seated in a vehicle) were identified from the Joint Theatre Trauma Registry. Each had their initial CT scans reviewed to identify spinal fractures. A literature search identified a comparison population of ejected aircrew with spinal fractures. Seventy-eight blast victims were identified with 294 fractures. One hundred eighty-nine patients who had sustained aircraft ejection were identified with 258 fractures. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the population injury distributions and Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences at each spinal level.

RESULTS

The distribution of injuries between blast and ejection was not similar. In the cervical spine, the relative risk of injury was 11.5 times higher in blast; in the lumbar spine the relative risk was 2.9 times higher in blast. In the thoracic spine, the relative risk was identical in blast and ejection. At most individual vertebral levels including the upper thoracic spine, there was a higher risk of injury in the blast population, but the opposite was true between T7 and T12, where the risk was higher in aircraft ejection.

CONCLUSIONS

The patterns of injury in blast and aircraft are different, suggesting that the two are mechanistically dissimilar. At most vertebral levels there is a higher relative risk of fracture in the blast population, but at the apex of the thoracic spine and in the lower thoracic spine, there is a higher risk in ejection victims. The differences in relative risk at different levels, and the resulting overall different injury patterns, suggest that a single model cannot be used to predict the risk of injury in ejection and blast.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A new model needs to be developed to aid in the design of mine-protected vehicles for future conflicts.