Combat pathology, particularly mine-blast injury is the main cause of military casualties. In our country, as a factor of destabilization, are widely used terrorist attacks using explosive devices of different capacities. Blast injury over 60% is cause of military casualties during armed conflicts. It is known that the condition for the formation of air-shock wave is creating waves of pressure, which is distributed at supersonic speed as possible with pulsed gas explosion and expansion of compression ambient air. The brain, chest, abdomen, and bladder are the most sensitive parts of the human body to blast. But the pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of post-traumatic explosion-induced disorders, namely, neurodegenerative complications psychosomatic, cognitive impairment, currently not fully understood and are not clear enough for an adequate therapy. The purpose of the study was to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of experimental models of blast-induced injury and to improve method and compressed air-driven shock tube. Material and methods. We used the following methods: analysis and evaluation of experimental models of explosion-induced injury by scientific publications, monographs and invention obtained in stages patent information search in the library collection of the State institution "Dnipropetrovsk Medical Academy of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine" (October 2019), a retrospective search of the literature database PubMed (February 2020). Results and discussion. A retrospective analysis of the number of literary sources on the experimental reproduction of explosive trauma has shown a high interest of a large circle of scientists in the last decade. A qualitative study of scientific publications has shown a wide range of physical characteristics of an experimental shock wave, methods and devices for simulating an explosive injury. The absence of a standardized model of explosive injury with characteristics as close as possible to real circumstances creates conditions for the implementation of our own proposals. Conclusion. This work presents a tested modified experimental model for reproducing an air shock wave under laboratory conditions, which makes it possible to study the features of the course of an explosive injury of various organs and organ systems at various periods after injury

Keywords: blast-induced injury, shock tube, experimental model

Full text: PDF (Ua) 277K

1. Vojchenko VV, Kozlov SV, Tkachenko OV, Zubov OL. Identyfikacija bojeprypasiv do avtomatychnogo stankovogo granatometu AGS-17 za morfologichnym harakterom ushkodzhen' ta ulamkiv, vyluchenyh z trupiv pid chas sudovo-medychnoi' ekspertyzy [Identification of ammunition to the automatic easel grenade launcher AGS-17 due to the morphological nature of the ears and ulamkiv, the thugs from the corpses every hour of the ship's medical examination]. Sudovo-medychna ekspertyza. 2018; (1): 58-60. [Ukranian]
2. Mamedov ShM, Tkachenko OV, Kozlov SV, Vydysh KP, Kozlova JuV, Lysycja OC, et al. Patomorfologichni aspekty vybuhovoi' travmy (porivnjal'na harakterystyka ushkodzhen', sprychynenyh protypihotnymy ulamkovymy minamy OZM-72 ta MON-50) [Pathomorphological aspects of vibukhovoy injuries (a specific characteristic of the ears, caused by the opposite ulamkovy mines OZM-72 and MON-50)]. Sudovo-medychna ekspertyza. 2017; (1): 102-106. [Ukranian]
3. Kozlov SV, Tkachenko OV, Zrozhevs'kyj RS. Sudovo-medychna harakterystyka tilesnyh ushkodzhen' pry kontaktnomu vybuhu granaty F-1 [The ship-medical characteristic of the forest ears with the contact vibukh of the F-1 grenade]. Sudovo-medychna ekspertyza. 2016; (1): 78-80. [Ukranian]
4. Savchenko SV, Tkachenko OV, Sokoljuk VG, Kozlov SV. Sudovo-medichna harakteristika vibuhovoї travmi, zapodіjanoї ulamkami granati RGD-5 [Ship-medical characteristic of vibukhovoy injuries, zapod_yanoy ulamki grenade RGD-5]. Sudovo-medychna ekspertyza. 2015; (1): 95-97. [Ukranian]
5. Danyljuk O, Meghoo C, Linchevskyy O. Causes of death among seventy-four military casualties in the ukrainian armed conflict. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019; 45(1): S171-S172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-019-01109-1
6. Ling G, Ecklund JM, Bandak FA. Brain injury from explosive blast: description and clinical management. Handbook of Clin Neurol. 2015; 127: 173-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52892-6.00011-8
7. Horrocks C. Blast injuries: biophysics, pathophysiology and management principles. BMJ Military Health. 2001; 147: 28-40.
8. Campos-Pires R, Yonis A, Macdonald W, Harris K, Edge JC, Mahoney PF, et al. A novel in vitro model of blast traumatic brain injury. Journal of visualized experiments. 2018; 142. https://doi.org/10.3791/58400
9. Mutafchiyski VM, Popivanov GI, Kjossev KC. Medical aspects of terrorist bombings – a focus on DCS and DCR. Military Med Res. 2014; 1: 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/2054-9369-1-13.
10. Kawa L, Kamnaksh A, Long J, Arborelius UP, Hӧkfelt T, Agoston VD, et al. A comparative study of two blast-induced traumatic brain injury models: changes in monoamine and galanin systems following single and repeated exposure. Frontiers in neurology. 2018; 9: 479. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00479
11. Shi QX, Chen B, Nie C, Zhao ZP, Zhang JH, Si SY, et al. A novel model of blast induced traumatic brain injury caused by compressed gas produced sustained cognitive deficits in rats: involvement of phosphorylation of tau at the Thr205 epitope. Brain Res Bull. 2020; 157: 149-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2020.02.002.
12. Garcia-Gonzalez D, Race NS, Voets NL, Jenkins DR, Sotiropoulos SN, Acosta G, et al. Cognition based bTBI mechanistic criteria; a tool for preventive and therapeutic innovations. Scientific Reports. 2018; 8: 10273. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28271-7
13. Cernak I, Noble-Haeusslein LJ. Traumatic brain injury: an overview of pathobiology with emphasis on military populations. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2010; 30(2): 255-266. https://doi.org/10.1038/jcbfm.2009.203
14. Risling M, Davidsson J. Experimental animal models for studies on the mechanisms of blast-induced neurotrauma. Frontiers in Neurology. 2012; 3: 30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2012.00030
15. VandeVord PJ, Leonardi ADC, Ritzel D. Bridging the gap of standardized animals models for blast neurotrauma: methodology for appropriate experimental testing. Methods Mol Biol. 2016; 1462: 101-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3816-2_7
16. Risling M, Davidsson J. Experimental animal models for studies on the mechanisms of blast-induced neurotrauma. Frontiers in neurology. 2012; 3: 30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2012.00030
17. Turner RC, Naser ZJ, Logsdon AF, DiPasquale KH, Jackson GJ, Robson MJ, et al. Modeling clinically relevant blast parameters based on scaling principles produces functional & histological deficits in rats. Experimental Neurology. 2013; 248: 520-529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2013.07.008
18. Bailey ZS, Hubbard WB, VandeVord PJ. Cellular mechanisms and behavioral outcomes in blast-induced neurotrauma: comparing experimental setups. injury models of the central nervous system. In: Methods in Molecular Biology. NY; Humana Press; 2016. 1462 p.
19. Jaiswal S, Knutsen AK, Wilson CM, Fu AH, Tucker LB, Kim Y, et al. Mild traumatic brain injury induced by primary blast overpressure produces dynamic regional changes in [18F]FDG uptake. Brain Research. 2019: 1723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2019.146400
20. Badea A, Kamnaksh A, Anderson RJ, Calabrese E, Long JB, Agoston DV. Repeated mild blast exposure in young adult rats results in dynamic and persistent microstructural changes in the brain. NeuroImage Clinical. 2018; 18: 60-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.01.007
21. Chandra N, Sundaramurthy A, Kobeissy FH. Acute pathophysiology of blast injury—from biomechanics to experiments and computations: implications on head and polytrauma. In: Brain neurotrauma: molecular, neuropsychological, and rehabilitation aspects. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; 2015. Chapter 18.
22. Divani AA, Murphy AJ, Meints J, Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Nordberg J, Monga M, et al. A novel preclinical model of moderate primary blast-induced traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurotrauma. 2015; 1109-1116. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2014.3686
23. Tong C, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Cong P, Shi X, Liu Y, et al. Shock waves increase pulmonary vascular leakage, inflammation, oxidative stress, and apoptosis in a mouse model. Experimental biology and medicine. 2018; 243(11): 934-944. https://doi.org/10.1177/1535370218784539
24. Swietek B, Skotak M, Chandra N, Pfister BJ. Characterization of a controlled shock wave delivered by a pneumatic table-top gas driven shock tube. Rev Sci Instrum. 2019; 90(7): 075116. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5099633
25. Rubovitch V, Ten-Bosch M, Zohar O, Harrison CR, Tempel-Brami C, Stein E, et al. A mouse model of blast-induced mild traumatic brain injury. Exp Neurol. 2011; 232(2): 280-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2011.09.018
26. Clemedson CJ, Criborn CO. A detonation chamber for physiological blast research. J Aviat Med. 1955; 26: 373-381.
27. Cernak I, Merkle AC, Koliatsos VE, Bilik JM, Luong QT, Mahota TM, et al. The pathobiology of blast injuries and blast-induced neurotrauma as identified using a new experimental model of injury in mice. Neurobiol Dis. 2011; 41(2): 538-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2010.10.025
28. Zhou Y, Wen LL, Wang HD, Zhou XM, Fang J, Zhu JH, et al. Blast-induced traumatic brain injury triggered by moderate intensity shock wave using a modified experimental model of injury in mice. Chin Med J. 2018; 131(20): 2447-2460. https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.243558
29. Nguyen T, Pearce AP, Carpanen D, Sory D, Grigoriadis, Newell N, et al. Experimental platforms to study blast injury. BMJ Military Health. 2019; 165: 33-37. https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2018-000966
30. Cernak I. Blast-induced neurotrauma models and their requirements. Front Neurol. 2014; 5: 128. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2014.00128