Page 99 - 2022 Spring JSOM

Injuries and Interventions on Transported Military Working Dogs

Within the US Central Command

1
Sarah A. Johnson ; Cheyenne Carr ; Lauren K. Reeves, MsPH ;
2
3
Krystal Bean, DVM, DACLAM ; Steven G. Schauer, DO, MS 1,3,4
4

ABSTRACT
Background: Limited veterinary care is available in the far for- identification of antipersonnel weapons. Similar to the Ser-
2,3
ward environment, leading to human medical personnel being vicemembers that are deployed, the MWDs are exposed to a
responsible, in part, for treatment of military working dogs myriad of risks in the operational setting. Due to the limited
(MWD). Though guidelines for MWD care exist, there is lit- number of veterinarians on active duty, one veterinarian is of-
tle research on the care and treatment of MWDs by human ten responsible for many MWDs over a large region. Criti-
4
medical personnel. There is a lot of research on the care and cal injury management is often performed by human health
treatment of MWDs. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of care providers such as the MWD handler or medics because
a dataset from the Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) of limited veterinary care availability, and transport time to
Regulating Command & Control and Evacuation System veterinary care can be hours or more. Lagutchik et al. found
3,5
(TRAC2ES) database within the US Central Command that almost half (40–50%) of healthcare providers enrolled in
(CENTCOM) from 2008 to 2018. Within this dataset specific the Joint Forces Combat Trauma Management Course with
to regulated transport from locations within CENTCOM, we previous deployments reported assisting in the emergency care
abstracted all entries involving MWDs and analyzed causes of an MWD. 6
of injury, type of injury, and interventions performed on trau-
matically and non–traumatically injured MWDs. Results: Despite the importance and cost of training of MWDs, limited
Within our dataset, there were 84 MWD cases for analysis. research has been conducted on their injury patterns, medical
Of those, 36 (43%) were transported for traumatic injuries, needs, and interventions. Most studies performed have been
and the remaining 48 (57%) were transported for other medi- centered around the causes of death, with very few studies
cal ailments. The most common cause of trauma was gunshot conducted on injuries which the MWD survived. Moreover,
wound (31%), followed by explosion (22%). The majority there is limited data focused on the nontrauma medical care
of trauma MWDs had injuries to the extremities (67%), and required. A recent study by Miller et al. examined the causes of
hemorrhage requiring intervention occurred in 25%. The death in 92 MWDs who operated in Operation Iraqi Freedom
most common interventions performed on traumas were anal- (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) from 2001 to
gesia (67%), antibiotics (31%), IV fluids (28%), and surgery 2013. This group found that trauma accounted for 77% of
1
(31%). The most common indications that occurred in MWDs deaths, with the most common injuries being due to gunshot
treated for nontraumatic medical indications were gastroin- wounds (GSWs) (32%) and explosions (26%). Mey et al. ex-
testinal diseases (33%), followed by nontraumatic orthopedic amined risk factors for MWDs in Iraq from 2003–2007. They
injuries (21%). Conclusions: Of the MWDs in our dataset, found that 62% of MWDs had a medical encounter during
most were transported for nontraumatic medical events. The their deployment. Thirty-three percent of MWDs received an
7
most frequent intervention performed was medication admin- injury due to trauma, while gastrointestinal injuries occurred
istration for both traumatic and medical ailments. Our dataset in 39% of MWDs. Baker et al. examined GSWs in MWDs
adds to the limited body of MWD data from theater. operating in OEF and OIF from 2003 to 2009, including in-
terventions performed and outcomes. This study found that
8
Keywords: military working dogs; surveillance; security 38% of MWDs survived the GSW with interventions per-
formed on the MWDs including hemostatic pressure dressings,
needle decompression, oxygen, and fluids. An older study by
Moore et al. examined causes of death from 1993 to 1996 in
Introduction
927 MWDs. This study found that the most common reasons
Military working dogs (MWDs) enhance military forces for death or euthanasia were appendicular degenerative joint
during military direct-action missions and through security disease (19%), neoplasia (18%), and spinal cord-cauda equina
and surveillance support. With superior senses, they are better disease (16%). However, much of this information is dated,
1
equipped to detect potential threats than their human coun- and one of the main causes of death was gastric dilation-
terparts. MWD activities have expanded to include patrols, volvulus (9%). This condition has since been corrected for the
direct combat, detection of explosives, detection of drugs, and majority of MWDs by performing a prophylactic gastropexy.
1
*Correspondence to steven.g.schauer.mil@mail.mil
1 Sarah A. Johnson, Cheyenne Carr, LTC Krystal Bean, and MAJ Steven G. Schauer are affiliated with the US Army Institute of Surgical
4
5
2
3
Re search, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX. Lauren K. Reeves, and MAJ Steven G. Schauer are affiliated with the Brooke Army Medical Cen-
5
5
ter, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX. MAJ Steven G. Schauer is also affiliated with the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences,
Bethesda, MD.
97