@entity130 in dismounted @entity1652 XXXX .

@entity1 @entity3614 @entity174 @entity1652 @entity542 @entity772 @entity130
BACKGROUND: The injury pattern from @entity1652 ( @entity1652 ) @entity130 is different if the target is in a vehicle (mounted) or on foot (dismounted). Combat and civilian first response protocols require the placement of a cervical collar on all victims of a @entity3614 . METHODS: We searched the Joint Theatre Trauma Registry (JTTR) and the Role 3 Hospital, Kandahar Airfield (KAF) database from Mar. 1, 2008, to May 31, 2011. We collected data on cervical @entity174 ; @entity542 ; @entity130 amputation; initial blood pressure, pulse, injury severity score (ISS), Glasgow @entity772 Scale (GCS) score and base excess; and @entity1 demographic information. RESULTS: The concordance rate between JTTR and KAF databases was 98%. Of the 15 693 admissions in JTTR, 326 @entity1 with dismounted @entity1652 injuries were located. The rate of cervical collar prehospital placement was 7.6%. @entity174 were found in 19 (5.8%) dismounted @entity1652 victims, but only 4 (1.2%) were considered radiographically unstable. None of these 19 @entity1 had prehospital placement of a collar. @entity1 with cervical spine fractures were more severely injured than those without (ISS 18.2 v. 13.4; GCS 10.1 v. 12.5). @entity1 with @entity542 had significantly higher risk of cervical @entity130 than those with no @entity542 recorded (13.6% v. 3.9%). No differences in frequency of cervical @entity130 were found between @entity1 who had associated @entity130 amputations and those who did not (5.4% v. 6.0%). CONCLUSION: Dismounted @entity1652 is a mechanism of injury associated with a low risk for cervical spine @entity130 . A selective protocol for cervical collar placement on victims of dismounted @entity1652 blasts is possible and may be more amenable to combat situations.
