A case report of drone injury and its relevance in India

Abstract

Drones are being used globally for varied purposes, including recreational, surveillance, and military. This ever-expanding usage has led to an increase in drone-related injuries. Blunt trauma to the head, eye globe injuries, and skin laceration being the commonest. We present a case of drone injury to the hands caused by its propeller blades.

1. Introduction

Drone, also termed as Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) or Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), has become a trendy word in recent times. In simpler terms, a drone is a flying robot that is controlled by a wireless remote.¹

Drones are being used in diverse fields. Apart from recreational use, they are being used for surveillance & rescue operations in the military, weather monitoring, traffic regulation, videography in events, and delivery services.

A variety of injuries have been reported to be caused by drones, including head injuries, eye lacerations, abdominal perforation, traumatic amputation, and skin lacerations.^{2, 3, 4, 5, 6}

About 12,842 hobbyist drone injuries were treated in the emergency departments in the United States of America during 2010–2017.²

Approximately six lakh unregulated drones are being used in India.⁷ Despite this unscrupulous rise in the number of drones, no reported data of injuries is available. A rise in the number of drones and associated injuries seems inevitable.

Thus, it becomes relevant in the present times to study the spectrum of injuries caused by drones so that they can be better managed and also prevented in the future.

2. Case report

A 40 years old man was using a drone (Trinity F9 VTOL) for surveillance and mapping for a policy planning survey by the city's municipal corporation. While handling the drone during its landing, he injured his hand by the drone's front propeller blades (Fig. 1). The patient presented to the emergency department of our hospital with multiple lacerations involving the second and third digits of the left and fourth and fifth digits of the right hand (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1.

Trinity F9 VTOL drone with broken front propellors and blood splatter over the wings.

Fig. 2.

Clinical photos of both hands showing the lacerations.

On examination of the injured left hand, bone-deep lacerations were seen on the dorsal aspect of the distal phalanges of the second and third digits, which were in turn accompanied by fracture of the underlying bone without any tendon injury.

Concomitant superficial injuries were observed on the volar aspect of distal phalanges of the right ring and little fingers. Neurovascular bundles were spared bilaterally.

Plain radiographs (A.P. and oblique views) of the left hand confirmed a tuft fracture of the second digit and a fracture of the shaft of the distal phalanx of the third digit (Fig. 3). After wound management, the fractured fingers were splinted. The sutures were removed after satisfactory wound healing on the tenth day (Fig. 4). Progressive physiotherapy and ROM exercises were started after suture removal. At follow-up, the fractures united uneventfully with full function and ROM of the hand.

Fig. 3.

Radiograph (AP and Oblique view) of the left hand showing fractures of the second and third distal phalanx.

Fig. 4.

Clinical photos of both hands at day 10.

3. Discussion

Drones can fly at high velocity and have propeller blades rotate at high speed. Drone injuries most commonly occur in young males (20–39 years). The maximum number of patients suffer only minor injuries and thus are discharged from the emergency department.⁸

Injuries to the arms and hands are the most common. They may vary from minor cuts to open fractures or even amputation of digits. Injuries can occur to the pilot as well as bystanders over which the drone is flying.^2,8

Drone handlers are prone to injuries during the landing phase of the drone.³ This happened in our case as well. Due to miscalculation about the flight during the landing phase of the drone, the patient received lacerations to multiple digits of both his hands, and the index and middle finger of the left had an open fracture of the distal phalanx from the high speed rotating propellers.

The injuries occurred due to the negligence on the part of the drone handler himself by not wearing the protective equipment and not maintaining a safe distance from the propellers.

Researchers have suggested that the blade tip speed has the highest correlation to injury.⁹ Speed, height, and drone mass have also been attributed to the severity of injuries¹⁰

Safety equipment like protective eye gear and gloves need to be worn while handling the drones. In addition, as propeller blades of the drone are most commonly responsible for injuries, safety measures like propeller guards, the addition of sensors for automatic deceleration in case of collision, and adhering to safety standards regarding the speed of the propeller blades can go a long way in preventing injuries.^1,6

In India, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation released UAS rules in a gazette notification for regulation of drones in March 2021. Based on weight, drones have been categorized into nano, micro, small, medium, and large. All categories of drones (except nano) need to be registered, and permission to fly needs to be taken from the appropriate authorities.

In the U.S.A., community flying groups such as “Know Before You Fly” have urged drone users to adhere to the safety standards.⁶ The formation of similar groups will invigorate the acceptance and adoption of safety standards in India.

4. Conclusion

• •The case highlights the potential risks of drone use.
• •Rotating blades/propellers of the drones can cause injuries ranging from minor cuts to open fractures.
• •Safety equipment like protective eye gear, gloves, and measures like propeller guards can help prevent injuries.

Funding

No funding was received.

Statement of informed consent/Ethical statement

Written informed consent regarding the use of data concerning the cases for publication was collected from the patient. All procedures performed in the study involving the human participant were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional ethical committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.