Abstract
Delayed evacuation creates a critical gap between point-of-injury care and definitive surgical management in battlefield trauma. Although Damage Control Orthopedics (DCO) is an established strategy for physiologically unstable trauma patients, it is usually implemented after evacuation and depends on higher-level medical support. We propose Battlefield Monitoring and Stabilization (BMS) as a forward-deployed conceptual framework for earlier battlefield care. BMS emphasizes temporary stabilization, hemorrhage-oriented intervention, basic physiological support, and portable monitoring before evacuation and definitive treatment. Proposed applications include point-of-injury stabilization, prolonged field care, and en-route casualty management. Several enabling components, including a rapidly assembled pelvic stabilization device, are under development. Relevant evaluation domains include fixation speed, hemostatic performance, monitoring accuracy, portability, and environmental adaptability. Further validation is warranted.
Keywords: Damage control orthopedics, battlefield trauma, hemorrhage control, fracture stabilization, physiological support, frontline care
Delayed evacuation in battlefield creates a critical gap between point-of-injury care and definitive surgical management [1-4]. Although Damage Control Orthopedics (DCO) is an effective strategy for physiologically unstable trauma patients, it is usually performed after evacuation and depends on higher-level medical support [5-7]. In casualties with limb or pelvic fractures, ongoing hemorrhage, mechanical instability, and limited monitoring capability may lead to preventable deterioration due to this interval [8-10].
To address this gap, we propose Battlefield Monitoring and Stabilization (BMS), a forward-deployed framework intended to extend selected damage-control principles to earlier phases of battlefield care. Rather than representing a single device or a replacement for conventional DCO, BMS is conceived as a transitional care concept that emphasizes early temporary stabilization, hemorrhage-oriented intervention, basic physiological support, and portable monitoring before evacuation and definitive treatment (Table 1). The proposed application scenarios of BMS include point-of-injury stabilization, prolonged field care under delayed evacuation, and en-route casualty management. Its workflow involves rapid casualty assessment, immediate bleeding control, recognition of suspected pelvic or limb instability, deployment of the stabilization module, initiation of portable monitoring, and serial reassessment during transport. BMS is intended to be tiered, with basic functions performed by trained combat medics and more advanced procedures undertaken by physicians or other appropriately trained personnel.
Table 1.
Comparison between Conventional Damage Control Orthopedics (DCO) and Battlefield Monitoring and Stabilization (BMS)
| Item | DCO | BMS |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Established staged trauma strategy | Forward-deployed conceptual framework |
| Timing | After evacuation | Before or during evacuation |
| Setting | Higher-level medical support | Austere battlefield setting |
| Main purpose | Temporary stabilization before definitive fixation | Transitional stabilization and monitoring before definitive care |
| Target phase | Post-evacuation unstable trauma care | Point-of-injury, delayed evacuation, and en-route care |
| Monitoring | Facility-based | Portable/field-based |
| Orthopedic focus | Temporary fracture stabilization | Early temporary limb/pelvic stabilization |
| Personnel | Surgeons and hospital trauma teams | Tiered personnel, including combat medics and physicians |
As BMS is currently presented as a conceptual proposal, objective evaluations should focus on the feasibility and performance of its enabling components and implementation processes. Several enabling components, including the rapidly assembled pelvic stabilization device (Figure 1), are under development to facilitate practical implementation of the BMS concept in austere battlefield settings. Relevant metrics may include assembly time, fixation success rate, simulated hemostatic performance, agreement of monitoring outputs with reference devices, total system weight, packed dimensions, and operational performance under adverse environmental conditions. Further bench, simulation, and field-oriented validation studies are warranted.
Figure 1.
A rapidly assembled pelvic stabilization device. A, B. Novel external fixation pins for anterior and posterior pelvic ring. C. Rapidly assembled joint. D, E. Adjustable stabilization frames for anterior and posterior pelvic ring.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable discussions and technical support provided by colleagues involved in the conceptual development of Battlefield Monitoring and Stabilization (BMS). We also thank the participating institutions for their support of this work.
Disclosure of conflict of interest
None.
References
- 1.Kotwal RS, Howard JT, Orman JA, Tarpey BW, Bailey JA, Champion HR, Mabry RL, Holcomb JB, Gross KR. The effect of a golden hour policy on the morbidity and mortality of combat casualties. JAMA Surg. 2016;151:15–24. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.3104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Dar PMUD, Kaur S, Katiyar AK, Priyadarshani P, Kumar S, Gupta A, Sagar S. Prehospital care: lessons learned from 311 mortalities at level I trauma center. Chin J Traumatol. 2026;29:90–95. doi: 10.1016/j.cjtee.2025.02.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Tsai SH, Liao WI, Peng CT, Young ZH, Lin CY, Hsu YJ, Tsai CS. Insights and lessons from recent conflicts: a narrative review from the military medicine perspective. J Formos Med Assoc. 2025 doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2025.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Lawry LL, Korona-Bailey J, Kanagaratnam A, Maddox J, Hamm TE, Janvrin M, Juman L, Berezyuk O, Amowitz Z, Schoenfeld AJ, Koehlmoos TP. Qualitative assessment of point of injury to Role 2+ combat casualty care in Ukraine. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2025;10:e001674. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2024-001674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Jarrassier A, Choufani C, Barbier O, Pasquier P. Survival advantages of damage-control orthopedics in military and counter-terrorism settings. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2025;99:e65–e66. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000004758. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ghabi A, Druel T, Odent JB, Pascal-Moussellard H, de Geofroy B, Mathieu L. Management of civilian gunshot limb injuries: a comparison of early total care and damage control orthopedics. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2026;73:103344. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2026.103344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Karp MC, April MD, Newberry RK, Schauer SG. Associations with prehospital antibiotic receipt among combat casualties with open wounds: a department of defense trauma registry study. Mil Med. 2024;189:e606–e611. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usad323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kenyon RM, Leighton JL. Control of haemorrhage in orthopaedic trauma. J Clin Med. 2024;13:4260. doi: 10.3390/jcm13144260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Johnson WB, Perry AD, Flores G, Pierrie SN, Alderete JF Jr, Allen P, Wilson J, King D, Childers WL. Identifying improvements in treating extremity musculoskeletal injuries during prolonged care. Mil Med. 2024;189:2731–2738. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usae404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Jarrassier A, de Rocquigny G, Delagarde C, Ezanno AC, Josse F, Dubost C, Duranteau O, Boussen S, Pasquier P. Transposing intensive care innovation from modern warfare to other resource-limited settings. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2025;51:290. doi: 10.1007/s00068-025-02974-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]