Prolonged deployed hospital care in the management of military eye injuries

INTRODUCTION

Military ocular trauma is common, being found in 10% of all injuries from explosive devices on the modern battlefield. This high frequency is compounded by a high probability of long-term profound visual loss, reflecting the lethality of weaponry used in modern conflicts.^{1, 2} Unlike civilian ocular trauma which is predominantly unilateral, up to 37% of military eye injuries are bilateral.^{1, 3-6} Military injuries are more severe than civilian injuries, with up to half of all injuries affecting the retina, compared to less than 1% of civilian injuries. In addition, 5-7% of civilian open globe injuries require eye removal compared to 31% of military open globe injuries.^{1, 3, 4, 7, 8}

Medical support to recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has relied on rapid aeromedical casualty evacuation, both to a medical treatment facility (MTF) with specialist surgeons (such as ophthalmologists) within the theatre of operations (Role 3), or out of country such as to Germany or the UK (Role 4). In the case of US support to Operations in Iraq (IRAQI FREEDOM and NEW DAWN) and Afghanistan (ENDURING FREEDOM and FREEDOM’S SENTINEL), this necessitated deploying Ophthalmologists to Iraq, Afghanistan and Germany for the entire conflicts,⁹ thus enabling assessment of eye injuries and repair of open globes within hours of injury – a level of care comparable to that found in civilian medical facilities.^{1, 10, 11} In the case of medical support to the United Kingdom (UK) Operation HERRICK in Afghanistan, Role 2 enhanced facilities in country relied on non-specialist initial assessment and stabilization, then rapid evacuation to a Role 4 facility in the UK,^{7, 12} which meant that between 2004 and 2008, the mean time taken for UK service personnel to be evacuated to specialist ophthalmic input (UK Role 4) was 2.6 days.⁷

NATO joint medical doctrine is to undertake damage control surgery within two hours of wounding.¹³ Although time to specialist treatment of ocular injuries has not been defined, multi-disciplinary consensus states that this should be within 24 hours.¹⁴ In a theatre of conflict, this level of medical support requires both the deployment of ophthalmologists and overall air-superiority.¹¹ Future conflicts are likely to have delays in evacuation,^14,15 and are likely to require local, Role 3, management for up to five days post injury.

The British military use the NATO doctrinal term “prolonged hospital care” (PHC) to describe “in theatre’ surgery” that is required when evacuation timelines are protracted.^{13, 16} The US military instead use the term prolonged field care (PFC) in Joint US doctrine as “field medical care, applied beyond doctrinal planning timelines”, and culminates in evacuation to higher level medical treatment facilities (MTF).¹⁷ For trauma, PHC and PFC may be thought of as an extension or follow-on treatment to Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC), when evacuation is delayed and providers are forced to address the patient’s needs beyond the initial resuscitation and preparation for transport.¹⁶

The 2.6 day evacuation time previously reported therefore represents care beyond current multidisciplinary consensus and standard western practice and most servicemen in this series therefore form an example of the effect of prolonged field care of ophthalmic injuries.^{3, 4, 18} We aimed to determine any effects on visual outcomes of this prolonged time to specialist ophthalmic assessment and treatment of eye injuries in UK service personnel injured in Afghanistan.

METHODS

The study was approved by the Clinical Governance departments of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UHBFT) and Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust (SWBH) and Research and Innovation at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine (RCDM).

We performed a retrospective comparative cohort study. We included all consecutive cases of military deployment-related eye trauma presenting to the United Kingdom Role 4 MTF between 23 August 2007 and 19 April 2013. We collected clinical data from UHBFT (the major military trauma unit in the UK, including RCDM) and the Birmingham and Midland Eye Centre (a major tertiary referral unit, part of SWBH), to which some patients were transferred for treatment. As UK military policy during this period was for all aeromedical evacuations for deployed ophthalmic trauma to be transferred to RCDM, this included all cases of military ophthalmic trauma during that period.

Cases were identified from: the UK Joint Theatre Trauma Registry; searching diagnosis codes at UHBFT for diagnosis codes of ocular trauma in military patients; emergency operating room registers at SWBH; a prospectively collected register of all cases with head and neck injury as previously reported.¹⁹ Data were collected between July 2017 and July 2019. We recorded: patient demographics, mechanism and classification (Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology System) of injury, presenting best-corrected visual acuity (VA), the presence of an afferent pupillary defect or traumatic infective endophthalmitis, surgical procedures performed (including primary repair and any secondary surgical interventions) and visual outcomes as best corrected visual acuity (VA). To mitigate inconsistencies associated with variable follow-up intervals, we recorded best corrected VA between 6 and 12 months post injury using the closest measurement to 6 months in instances where more than result was recorded. For the purposes of analysis, all VA measurements were converted to logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) equivalents, including those with less than Snellen vision, as previously described.²⁰ Ocular trauma score was calculated retrospectively when there was sufficient documentation of injury type including: initial VA, presence or absence of a relative afferent pupillary defect, retinal detachment and endophthalmitis.²¹ Eye injuries were classified according to the Birmingham Eye Trauma Terminology System (BETTS).²² Secondary procedures were considered as any surgical procedure, directly related to the trauma, performed after the time of primary repair.

RESULTS

All patients were male, with a mean age of 25. Injuries are summarized in Figure 1. The mean time to arrival at a centre with an ophthalmologist was 1.74 days (±0.15; median 1.32; range 0.13 – 7.21). Outcomes, summarised by presenting ocular trauma score where this could be calculated are presented in Table 1. There was no variation in time to arrival by open or closed injury type.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Summary of injury classification.

DISCUSSION

PHC includes care provided outside of doctrinal planning timelines. We report the care of deployed military eye injuries, most of which received initial ophthalmic care more than 1 day after injury, ranging up to 7 days. While visual outcomes were comparable with other military series,¹ both closed and open globe injuries suffered decrements in final visual acuity with increasing time to specialist assessment and the probability of endophthalmitis was increased compared to comparable military injuries with more rapid access to care.^{1, 10}

The mean time to specialist ophthalmic assessment was 1.5 days, which is less than previously reported and represents an incredible achievement of the aeromedical evacuation process.⁷ The standard of care in Western medical practice and consensus for military injury management is access to specialist assessment to allow primary repair within 24 hours of injury and there is some evidence that this should be shortened to 12 hours.¹⁸ Delayed repair beyond 12-24 hours worsens final visual acuity and increases the risk of endophthalmitis and post-operative wound leak,^{3, 4, 18, 23} consistent with our finding of worsening visual outcome associated with time to repair for penetrating injuries. The lack of any association in rupture and perforating injuries relates to the universally poor outcome for this injury type (all injuries no perception of light or eviscerated at 6-12 months). The lack of association for IOFB injuries could reflect development of cataract after secondary vitreoretinal surgery. IOFB injuries being lower energy (with better visual outcome) is an unlikely explanation, as that is the case in civilian injuries, in which an association with time to repair is present.³

OTS was not associated with visual outcome when BETTS was also included in the analysis, which most probably reflects a lack of independence between these two terms, with rupture injuries associated with a low OTS for instance.

When compared with civilian injuries in Birmingham in a similar timeframe,³ military injuries had worse outcomes even accounting for the effect of OTS, BETTS injury type and time to surgery with military patients’ 6-12 month logMAR VA 0.96 (±0.36) worse than civilians’. Compared to the analysis of 253 globe injuries by Weichel et al.,¹ broken down by presenting visual acuity, there was no evidence of a difference in outcome compared to our series (Chi-squared, p=0.496), but endophthalmitis was more common (Chi-squared, p<0.001).

Three cases of endophthalmitis from 50 open globe injuries is similar to civilian series,^{3, 24, 25} in which times to primary repair were variable (but lower than this series) and antibiotics were not always given, but higher than comparable military case series, in which systemic antibiotic prophylaxis was given and primary repair performed within hours of injury,^{1, 10} suggesting that earlier access to primary repair reduces the risk of endophthalmitis even when systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is given.

For closed injuries, delayed access to care in hyphaema (>24 hours) is associated with an increased re-bleeding rate.²⁶ We observed worse visual outcomes for hyphaema patients compared to other patients with closed globe injury, despite accounting for injury severity using OTS, which could suggest that the presence of hyphaema is associated with a more severe injury than indicated by reductions in presenting visual acuity or that the complications of hyphaema worsen visual outcome. The effect of time to ophthalmic care in patients with hyphaema and OTS ≤3 suggests that patients with hyphaema and more severe injuries were more likely to suffer complications reducing visual outcome, such as rebleed and elevated IOP, and the likelihood of this increased with increased time to ophthalmic care, which would be consistent with previous evidence.²⁶

We recognize multiple limitations to this study, which, like other analyses of military ocular trauma, was retrospective in nature. We have attempted to address variation in injury severity by calculation of OTS, but are limited by the proportion of patients in whom visual acuity could not be assessed because of unconsciousness. We have further accounted for potential variation in injury severity in different groups by sensitivity analysis to impute missing OTS values, which found results consistent with the primary analysis in the case of open globe injuries, supporting a reliable association between time to primary open globe repair and visual outcome.

The potential for PHC in future conflicts remains a challenge for military medical planners, in which there are three options for military ophthalmic injury management: (1), forward deployment of ophthalmology; (2), delayed access to ophthalmology; (3), ophthalmic care provided by non-specialists. This cohort includes patients managed under a combination of all three approaches, as some patients were assessed and managed within hours of injury by US Ophthalmologists in country, some had limited assessment and treatment by non-specialists and most waited for specialist ophthalmic assessment in the UK. These data suggest that time to specialist ophthalmic care contributes to outcome and should support forward deployment of ophthalmology.

Funding/Support

none

Financial Disclosures

No financial disclosures.