Novel method for comparing coverage by future methods of ballistic facial protection

Area of Science:

• Military medicine
• Trauma research
• Ballistic protection

Background:

• Eye protection significantly reduces eye injuries from explosive fragments in soldiers.
• However, facial injuries remain a concern due to a lack of evidence for protective measures beyond the eyes.
• A notable percentage of soldiers injured were not wearing eye protection at the time of injury.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze facial injury patterns in UK soldiers in Afghanistan.
• To evaluate the effectiveness of current eye protection and predict outcomes with additional facial protection (visor, mandible guard).
• To introduce a novel computational tool for assessing ballistic facial protection.

Main Methods:

• Utilized a new computerized tool to analyze entry sites of explosive fragment wounds in UK soldiers injured between 2010-2011.
• Compared clinical outcomes with predicted outcomes using Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) and Functional Capacity Index (pFCI).
• Simulated the impact of a visor and mandible guard on injury outcomes.

Main Results:

• Soldiers wearing eye protection were 9 times less likely to sustain eye injuries.
• 38% of injured soldiers were not wearing eye protection.
• The computational tool accurately predicted clinical outcomes (AIS and pFCI).
• A visor showed potential to reduce long-term morbidity more than eye protection alone.
• Limited evidence supports mandible guards, though they offer nasal protection.

Conclusions:

• A novel computational tool can aid in selecting future ballistic facial protection methods.
• Visors may offer significant long-term benefits for facial injury reduction in soldiers.
• Further trials are recommended to assess the acceptability and efficacy of visors for soldiers.