Research Examines Blast Impact on Human Brain

FORT DETRICK, Md., April 12, 2011 — There’s lit­tle debate about the risk of a brain injury when a ser­vice mem­ber gets a blow to the head — whether from an ene­my round or from crash­ing against a wall or being inside a vehi­cle dur­ing an explo­sion.
But some of the fore­most aca­d­e­m­ic researchers from around the world, work­ing in coop­er­a­tion with the Defense Department’s Blast Injury Research Pro­gram, are try­ing to deter­mine exact­ly what hap­pens to a ser­vice member’s brain when it’s exposed to a blast, but with no direct head impact.

Their answers could change the way the mil­i­tary pro­tects tens of thou­sands of deployed troops from impro­vised explo­sive devices, mor­tar rounds and oth­er explo­sions, Michael J. Leg­gieri Jr., direc­tor of the Defense Department’s Blast Injury Research Pro­gram Coor­di­nat­ing Office, told Amer­i­can Forces Press Ser­vice. DOD has long rec­og­nized the risks of over­pres­sure and shock waves asso­ci­at­ed with blasts on the human body, Leg­gieri said.

For the past 18 years the Army Med­ical Research and Mate­r­i­al Com­mand based here has con­duct­ed a robust research pro­gram focused on occu­pa­tion­al expo­sures to blasts — such as when an artillery crew­man fires a how­itzer.

As a result, the com­mand helps the Army eval­u­ate the blast impact of every weapons sys­tem before it’s field­ed. But the cur­rent con­flicts, and the fre­quen­cy of per­cus­sive blasts and explo­sions, leave researchers ques­tion­ing: What effect are they hav­ing on the brain, and how can we bet­ter pro­tect ser­vice mem­bers against trau­mat­ic brain injuries?

The answer isn’t as easy as it may appear, Leg­gieri explained. That’s because, despite decades of study in the Unit­ed States and around the world about brain injury, no one com­plete­ly under­stands what hap­pens to the human brain dur­ing a blast.

In fact, DOD has a lot of clin­i­cal data about the impact of blasts on the brain, but that’s from ani­mal stud­ies, Leg­gieri said. Com­par­ing ani­mal data to humans, par­tic­u­lar­ly when deal­ing with some­thing as com­plex as the brain, rais­es as many ques­tions as it answers, he said.

In terms of humans, DOD has just one con­firmed clin­i­cal case of a deployed ser­vice mem­ber who suf­fered a brain injury in a blast with­out hit­ting his head, Leg­gieri said. “We know a lot about what hap­pens when you get hit in the head or hit your head against some­thing and it caus­es a brain injury,” Leg­gieri said. “That has been stud­ied for decades, pri­mar­i­ly by the auto­mo­tive indus­try. Impact is some­thing we know quite a bit about. But this whole ques­tion about blast is still a ques­tion.”

And although the Army is at work on its sec­ond-gen­er­a­tion hel­met sen­sor with plans to field it soon to about 30,000 sol­diers, there’s still no clear indi­ca­tion of what those blast read­ings will mean in terms of the brain.

The­o­ries abound in how blasts can cause brain injuries, Leg­gieri said. One preva­lent the­o­ry advo­cates that the blast shock wave caus­es the skull to flex and as a result, dam­ages the brain. Anoth­er the­o­ry actu­al­ly has noth­ing to do with the head. It sup­ports the idea that the blast pres­sure squeezes the tho­rax — much the way fin­gers squeeze a tube of tooth­paste. The result, the­o­rists say, is a sud­den vas­cu­lar surge that goes up into the brain, caus­ing an injury.

Get­ting to the bot­tom of what exact­ly hap­pens is more than a sci­en­tif­ic exer­cise, Leg­gieri said, it’s crit­i­cal to find­ing the best way to pro­tect ser­vice mem­bers. The first the­o­ry might sup­port a new kind of com­bat hel­met pro­tec­tion, or mod­i­fi­ca­tion to the cur­rent hel­met. The lat­ter might call for mod­i­fied body armor. But pro­vid­ing the wrong solu­tion, no mat­ter how well-inten­tioned, could actu­al­ly back­fire in adding more weight and less mobil­i­ty to the warfight­er.

“If you are restrict­ing their abil­i­ty to per­form the mis­sion, you are actu­al­ly putting them at risk because now they can’t do what they need to do to sur­vive,” Leg­gieri said. “So you have got to be very care­ful about what pro­tec­tion sys­tems you put on a sol­dier. You have to make sure they are real­ly effec­tive at what they are sup­posed to be doing.

“My point is, if you don’t under­stand the mech­a­nism, you can’t pos­si­bly pro­tect against it,” he added. “You may end up doing some­thing that has no effect what­so­ev­er.” Leg­gieri assem­bled a forum of about 100 of the world’s lead­ing brain-injury researchers to deter­mine, first, whether their work shows that blast-induced mild trau­mat­ic brain injuries actu­al­ly exist, and, if so, what hap­pens with­in the brain to cause them.

“With this expert pan­el, we are reach­ing out to this com­mu­ni­ty of mod­el­ers, clin­i­cians, and exper­i­men­tal­ists who do ani­mal research in blasts, and get­ting these com­mu­ni­ties to final­ly work togeth­er and to com­mu­ni­cate with each oth­er,” he said. “We are going to have them help us pin down what we don’t know and to get to a solu­tion.”

The meet­ing proved to be a huge suc­cess. Atten­dees “start­ed to com­mu­ni­cate, to share infor­ma­tion, to come up with ideas about how we might approach this,” Leg­gieri said. What’s need­ed, they agreed, is a val­i­dat­ed math­e­mat­i­cal mod­el to show how a blast inter­acts with the human head, and how that might cause a brain injury. Cur­rent mod­els — and there are sev­er­al — are based on sim­u­la­tions that can’t be sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly val­i­dat­ed, Leg­gieri said.

So Leg­gieri estab­lished a DOD Brain Injury Mod­el­ing Expert Pan­el, made up of 19 lead­ing mod­el­ers from acad­e­mia, indus­try and gov­ern­ment. So far they have met four times, with their fifth and final ses­sion slat­ed for this sum­mer.

“Their work is going to help us devel­op a research roadmap that will take us from where we are today … to a val­i­dat­ed mod­el of blast-induced brain injury that we can say with con­fi­dence is an accu­rate mod­el of what hap­pens to humans,” Leg­gieri said.

That mile­stone, he said, will help the Defense Depart­ment bet­ter tai­lor pro­tec­tive sys­tems for its ser­vice mem­bers.

“The goal and the focus are on how to pre­vent this,” he said. “Let’s under­stand it and find a way to pre­vent it. If we can make a dif­fer­ence just in these areas, I think would be a huge advance­ment.”

Source:
U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs)

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →