War Injuries to the Head and Neck

Đanić, Davorin; Prgomet, Drago; Miličić, Damir; Leović, Dinko; Puntarić, Dinko

doi:10.1093/milmed/163.2.117

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Inferior protective equipment (helmets and bullet-proof jackets) resulted in injuries inflicted by explosive projectiles and devices in more than two thirds of Croatian civilians and soldiers [7,8,18,19]. However, there was relatively rapid and effective management of Puntarić /Soldo-Butković/Vladetić/ Prgomet the wounded as almost 5 out of every 6 wounded soldiers survived [18,19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neurologic Recovery after Penetrating Craniocerebral War Injury

Puntarić¹,

Soldo-Butković

Vladetić

et al. 2000

Neuroepidemiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From June 1, 1991, until December 31, 1992, 116 patients with penetrating craniocerebral war injuries inflicted at the east Slavonian front were treated at the Osijek University Hospital. There were 26 (22.4%) gunshot wounds and 90 (77.6%) wounds inflicted by explosive devices and projectiles. Four years after the injury, a study of the survivors’ condition was carried out. No difference was recorded in the survival rate between the patients with gunshot wounds compared with explosive wounds. Rehabilitation produced good results in the survivors, in the prevention of both acute and chronic complications and permanent damage. Older age, lower Glasgow Coma Scale, and level of consciousness were found to be prognostic indicators of outcome.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Closed craniocerebral injuries usually caused by traffic accidents are commoner in peacetime [9]. Penetrating craniocerebral explosive and gunshot injuries are commoner in wartime [4,7,8,10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurologic Recovery after Penetrating Craniocerebral War Injury

Puntarić¹,

Soldo-Butković

Vladetić

et al. 2000

Neuroepidemiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We will not extensively review this topic, and the reader is referred to numerous reports and reviews of these proliferative markers as predictors of radiation response in the literature Begg, 1995;Gasparini et al, 1995;Ciancio et al, 1997;Silvestrini et al, 1997a;Wilson, 1998;Begg et al, 1999;Bradford, 1999;Danic et al, 1999;Bjork-Eriksson et al, 2000;Corvo et al, 2000;Silvestrini, 2000;Sittel et al, 2000). There are conflicting reports regarding the majority of proliferative markers with respect to radiation sensitivity and local control with radiation therapy.…”

Section: Cell Kinetic/proliferative Markersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular markers in clinical radiation oncology

Haffty¹,

Glazer²

2003

Oncogene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiation therapy plays a critical role in the management of a majority of patients diagnosed with cancer. Identification of factors that help predict which patients are at risk for relapse within the irradiated field remains an active area of investigation. Although conventional clinical and pathologic factors have been helpful in identifying risk and guiding clinical decision-making for both local and systemic management, there is clearly a need to identify additional prognostic markers, which can aid in refining our treatment strategies and improving outcomes. A substantial amount of research efforts have been devoted to identifying molecular markers for prognostic and therapeutic strategies. The recent emergence of a powerful armamentarium of molecular tools has resulted in rapid expansion of our fund of knowledge and understanding of the molecular biology underlying tumor behavior and response. While a majority of these efforts have been focused on risk factors for metastatic disease and survival, there is a rapidly growing body of literature focused on molecular factors associated with radiation resistance and locoregional failure. In this review, we summarize recent advances and the available literature evaluating molecular markers as they relate to radiation sensitivity of solid tumors. Literature regarding the potential application of expression of genes related to apoptosis, angiogenesis, cell cycle, DNA repair and growth factors will be reviewed. Some of the basic biology and laboratory evidence demonstrating how the marker relates to radiation response and available correlative clinical studies employing these markers as prognostic tools are presented. The majority of molecular markers that have potential clinical significance with respect to radiation sensitivity and local control will be highlighted.

show abstract

“…Facial injury is not often life threatening unless it is associated with other injuries of the skull, airway, and other associated injuries. [34] The major risks to airway in patients of facial trauma are due to alteration of patient's airway anatomy through bony disruption, soft tissue disruption, and increased chances of aspiration pneumonitis. [5]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blast injury face: An exemplified review of management

Kumar

Singh

Kumar

et al. 2013

Natl J Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facial injuries are extremely common due to increased incidence of vehicular and industrial trauma and warfare injuries. But isolated injury to the face due to low voltage cells exploding is rare. In blast injury, the force can cause massive soft tissue injury, along with injury to facial fractures and damage to adnexa. Facial injury is not life threatening unless associated with other injuries of the skull and airway. The major risks to airway in facial trauma are due to anatomic alteration of patient's airway through bony and soft tissue disruption and increased chances of aspiration. The past several decades have seen a rapid growth in the range of procedures available for reconstructive purposes. However, the essential preliminary management is a must and needs to be structured. The patient, a 10-year-old boy, was joining three pencil batteries in series and twisting the wire with his teeth when one battery exploded causing severe injuries to midface and mandibular region. After stabilization, the patient was taken up for surgery. A cap splint with zygomatic suspension was done for the maxilla, and wiring of residual mandibular segments with lining and skin cover provided by a deltopectoral flap was done. Reconstructive surgeries for reconstruction of the upper lip and maintenance of oral continence were planned for the future. The present case stresses the importance of educating the masses about unsafe handling of low voltage devices, management of airway, massive soft tissue injury, along with facial fractures and damage to adnexa.

show abstract

War Injuries to the Head and Neck

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Neurologic Recovery after Penetrating Craniocerebral War Injury

Neurologic Recovery after Penetrating Craniocerebral War Injury

Molecular markers in clinical radiation oncology

Blast injury face: An exemplified review of management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About