Page 129 - JSOM Winter 2022

TABLE 3 Injury Characteristics, Preventable Injury Category, and Interventions of Military Working Dog Injuries by Certification/Unit
Assignment (N = 190)*
Conventional Special Operations Forces
Military Working Dogs Multipurpose Canines
Characteristic n = 132 n = 58 P †
Type of Trauma < 0.001
Blunt (No., %) 28 (21%) 1 (2%)
Penetrating (No., %) 85 (64%) 45 (78%)
Blunt and Penetrating (No., %) 14 (11%) 12 (20%)
Other/Unknown (No., %) 5 (4%) 0 (0%)
‡
Mechanism of Injury < 0.001
Explosion (No., %) 25 (19%) 16 (28%)
Gunshot Wound (No., %) 5 (4%) 39 (67%)
Knife/Sharp Object (No., %) 45 (34%) 2 (3%)
Fall (No., %) 12 (9%) 1 (2%)
Animal Bite/Scratch (No., %) 30 (23%) 0 (0%)
§
Other/Unknown (No., %) 15 (11%) 0 (0%)
Injury Prevention Category <0.001
Preventable (No., %) 36 (27%) 1 (2%)
Potentially Preventable (No., %) 59 (45%) 5 (8%)
Unpreventable (No., %) 33 (25%) 22 (38%)
Not Enough Information (No., %) 4 (3%) 30 (52%)
Intervention <0.001
Protective Equipment (No., %) 41 (31%) 5 (8%)
Handler Training (No., %) 53 (40%) 1 (2%)
Policy/Doctrine (No., %) 1 (1%) 0 (0%)
‖
Not Applicable (No., %) 37 (28%) 52 (90%)
*Five dogs excluded as unit association and certification was unknown.
† p-value for Fisher’s exact test of k×k table.
‡ Other category includes three events involving a burn, electrical, or chemical exposure.
§ Other category includes three motor vehicle accidents, three crush/pinch injuries, two electrical injuries, and one fire injury.
Not applicable – potential interventions were not identified for injuries determined to be unpreventable or that did not have enough information.
‖
Values in bold signify statistical differences (p < .01) between conventional MWDs and SOF MPCs within a row.
The reason may be that most gunshot wounds occurred in an- many of which were the result of fights with other MWDs.
atomical locations that are not covered by body armor, which Thus, training on the importance of MWD separation and
mainly covers only the thorax, an uncommon location of gun- awareness of other MWDs could help decrease these types of
shot wounds in this study. Baker et al. evaluated gunshot wounds injuries. Furthermore, of the six preventable/potentially pre-
in a small subset of MWDs deployed from 2003 to 2009 and ventable injuries that led to death, the SME panel determined
concluded that even with protective gear available at the time, four were caused by handler errors. Therefore, it is plausible
those dogs who suffered from thoracic gunshot wounds would that improved handler training and experience could have po-
not have been protected due to its limited coverage. Addition- tentially prevented these deaths. It is unknown if the MWDs
21
ally, Reeves et al. evaluated traumatic injury interventions in included in this study were wearing any protective equipment
eleven MWDs deployed from February 2008 to December 2014 at the time of injury. Common practice during the period these
and determined that 37.5% of MWDs who sustained gunshot MWDs were deployed make it unlikely that protective equip-
wounds were mortally wounded. The authors suggested that ment was being used. 21,22 Nevertheless, the use of protective
22
their findings are likely a result of gun fire from high veloc- equipment was selected as a primary intervention for almost
ity weapons and at close-range. The largest study of trauma in half of the preventable/potentially preventable injuries, most
deployed MWDs observed that only 23.9% of 46 dogs with of which were injuries to the paw from a knife/sharp object
gunshot wounds survived. Currently, the use of bulletproof (largely from concertina wire). The use of canine protective
15
vests is uncommon in MWD populations, as it can lead to heat footwear could help reduce these paw injuries. As canine pro-
exhaustion and is not ideal for desert environments. 21–23 More tective footwear continues to improve, paw injuries due to
funding is needed to create protective equipment, such as bullet- knives/sharp objects may be prevented.
proof vests, that provides adequate coverage that is lightweight
and flexible yet effective for MWDs. 23 In contrast to improved handler training and use of protec-
tive equipment, a change to policy or doctrine was selected
Improved handler training was selected as the primary inter- as the primary intervention for only one MWD injury event,
vention for over half of the preventable/potentially preventable which was caused by smoke inhalation from a fire in the living
injuries. Handlers are responsible for the health and safety of quarters. Importantly, handler training was also identified by
their MWDs. Although handlers do not intentionally harm the panel as an important intervention for this injury event.
their MWDs, this study identified instances in which handlers While more specific details of this injury event are unknown,
could have acted differently and potentially prevented a com- a change or update in policy was proposed to ensure that no
mon injury to their MWD, such as animal bites and scratches, other MWDs are left behind in an event such as this. Generally,

Preventable Traumatic Injury Among Military Working Dogs | 127