Logo of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br)
Quick search:        
          Advanced Search
Guest Access | Sign In
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume, Vol 91-B, Issue SUPP_II, 210.  
Copyright © 2009 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Edwards, D.
Right arrow Articles by Lane, C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Edwards, D.
Right arrow Articles by Lane, C

Combined Services Orthopaedic Society


Bovington, England: 18 May 2007

President: Mr R Vickers


INJURIES SUSTAINED DURING INDIRECT ENEMY FIRE (IDF); ANALYSIS OF PERSONAL PROTECTION (PP), COMBAT BODY ARMOUR (CBA) AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPS)

D. Edwards; and C Lane

Casualties due to IDF have been rare on operations in Iraq (six seen on Op Telic 4). As a consequence PP systems are fortunately seldom tested. During the closing months of 2006, the Shaat-Al-Arab Hotel (SAAH) base, in Basrah, came under frequent and accurate IDF.

Case 1: 0653hrs, 26th November 2006, the SAAH came under attack from 6 rounds of IDF. Three live mortars landed within the accommodation complex resulting in 7 casualties (3xT1, 2xT2, 2xT3). The rounds were discovered to be 81mm Mortars of recent Iranian Manufacture. The mortars landed sequentially resulting in the casualties being in varying states of readiness at time of injury.

Case 2: 0018hrs, 9th December 2006, 8 rounds of IDF stuck the SAAH. One mortar landed in the accommodation complex at SAAH. One soldier sustained injuries (1xT1).

All soldiers treated were assessed by a full history and examination. The injuries sustained were correlated to patient activity, use of CBA and adherence to SOP’s, at the time of injury. This information was then compared between cases. This was done by discussion between Role 1 RMO and Role 3 Surgical SHO. Strict adherence of SOPs and use of PP by individuals had not occurred in Case 1. PP’s and SOP’s where subsequently modified. In Case 2 a direct hit on a 6 man tent (all present at the time) resulted in only one casualty. SOP’s and PP were in use at the time.

Communication between Role 1 and 3 is vital for analysis of incident and casualties. This allows important information to be fed to the chain of command and therefore PP or SOP’s could be up held or modified, the value of such can also be delivered to the troops. This proved beneficial in reducing casualties.

Correspondence should be addressed to Major M Butler RAMC, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, Devon.

Correspondence should be addressed to Major M Butler, CSOS, Institute of Naval Medicine, Crescent Road, Alverstoke, Hants PO12 2D






(c) British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery All Rights Reserved
Registered charity no: 209299     Print ISSN: 0301-620X
Hip, Knee, Trauma, Upper limb, Foot & Ankle, Paediatrics, Oncology, Spine, Arthroplasty, General