thedrifter
10-07-07, 04:43 PM
Blinded vets ask for research
Lawmakers hear testimony on combat eye injuries
By William H. McMichael - bmcmichael@militarytimes.com
Posted : October 15, 2007
Percentage-wise, more troops have suffered eye injuries in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars than in any conflicts in the past 100 years, said Thomas Zampieri, a leading advocate for blinded veterans.
Army 1st Lt. Ivan Castro is one of those veterans. Castro, in the Army for 18 years, was severely injured in a Sept. 2, 2006, mortar attack near Yusufiyah, Iraq, that killed two other soldiers. He received cuts to his left arm, legs and lower trunk, lost his right index finger, fractured facial bones and suffered an aneurysm.
But while he survived those particular injuries well enough to plan on taking part in the Oct. 7 Army Ten-Miler run in Washington, he would do so sightlessly — his right eye is gone and he took shrapnel through his left eye, leaving the former Ranger and Green Beret totally blind.
Castro raves about the care he’s received at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.
But like many of the troops who have sustained combat eye trauma in the current wars, he’d like to have as much research going into advances in sight restoration as has been conducted in prosthetics and, to a lesser extent, treatment of traumatic brain injury.
“If I was to lose a leg, I’d get a prosthetic leg,” Castro said. “I’d still be able to walk, be able to function with it. If you lose an eye, you just get a cosmetic. I can’t use it.”
Combat eye injuries have become common in Afghanistan and Iraq because of the rise of the signature weapon of those wars, the improvised explosive device. Kevlar helmets, improved body armor and advances in battlefield medicine have dramatically increased survival rates, but don’t protect against blasts and impacts against the head and face — and an increase in eye injuries are a result.
The true number of troops who have suffered such injuries is unknown, said Zampieri, of the Blinded Veterans Association. He provided one measure: Of the 8,298 troops medevaced from Iraq from March 19, 2003, to Sept. 17, 2007, 1,162, or 13 percent, had sustained eye trauma.
But the number of actual victims, not centrally tabulated, is probably higher because eye injuries are not solely the result of a direct hit, such as Castro and many others have suffered.
The BVA estimates that 54 percent of all the war’s roughly 7,000 traumatic brain injury or spinal-cord injury victims suffer post-traumatic visual impairment. Eye injuries are also particularly debilitating: In addition to the degradation or loss of vision, the visual system, the association says, is involved in 70 percent of the human body’s sensory processing.
“A lot of visibility has gone into amputees and TBI,” said Castro, who attended an Oct. 4 House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee hearing on Department of Veterans Affairs research programs, with his wife, Evelyn Galvis, at his side.
“Not much light has been given to people with eye injuries,” Castro said. “And the panel’s question about whether we have enough money? No!”
At least some help is on the way. The Senate’s version of the 2008 spending bill for the Defense Department includes an amendment that would establish a Center of Excellence for military eye injuries and an eye trauma registry that would ease follow-on care and help develop a database for best practices.
A stand-alone House bill recommends more research for traumatic eye injuries. And the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee has recommended that $480 million be spent this fiscal year on VA medical and prosthetics research.
But proponents say more funding is needed for specific research into eye injuries. Congress spent $4.8 million last fiscal year, but so far, nothing has been earmarked in any 2008 proposals, said Zampieri, one of the experts who testified before the House subcommittee.
“I look at this and say, is there something wrong with this picture?” he said. “The scary thing is, there might be zero [funding].”
Castro, who wants to continue serving as an Army trainer, and his wife want to see more research into advanced means of restoring sight.
VA investigators are developing behavioral strategies, although those are of no help to someone with injuries as catastrophic as Castro’s.
VA researchers are making progress on development of an artificial retina, although they say few of the injured will be able to benefit because of the devastating nature of many of the injuries.
Castro, who is getting fitted for a prosthetic right eye, lost the use of the retina in his left eye. He also may have suffered damage to the optic nerve.
But he holds out hope that advanced research into the use of embryonic stem cells to restore vision might be imported to the U.S. and that he and others might benefit from it.
Such efforts are underway in Britain, where scientists are using such cells to repair damaged retinas.
Ellie
Lawmakers hear testimony on combat eye injuries
By William H. McMichael - bmcmichael@militarytimes.com
Posted : October 15, 2007
Percentage-wise, more troops have suffered eye injuries in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars than in any conflicts in the past 100 years, said Thomas Zampieri, a leading advocate for blinded veterans.
Army 1st Lt. Ivan Castro is one of those veterans. Castro, in the Army for 18 years, was severely injured in a Sept. 2, 2006, mortar attack near Yusufiyah, Iraq, that killed two other soldiers. He received cuts to his left arm, legs and lower trunk, lost his right index finger, fractured facial bones and suffered an aneurysm.
But while he survived those particular injuries well enough to plan on taking part in the Oct. 7 Army Ten-Miler run in Washington, he would do so sightlessly — his right eye is gone and he took shrapnel through his left eye, leaving the former Ranger and Green Beret totally blind.
Castro raves about the care he’s received at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.
But like many of the troops who have sustained combat eye trauma in the current wars, he’d like to have as much research going into advances in sight restoration as has been conducted in prosthetics and, to a lesser extent, treatment of traumatic brain injury.
“If I was to lose a leg, I’d get a prosthetic leg,” Castro said. “I’d still be able to walk, be able to function with it. If you lose an eye, you just get a cosmetic. I can’t use it.”
Combat eye injuries have become common in Afghanistan and Iraq because of the rise of the signature weapon of those wars, the improvised explosive device. Kevlar helmets, improved body armor and advances in battlefield medicine have dramatically increased survival rates, but don’t protect against blasts and impacts against the head and face — and an increase in eye injuries are a result.
The true number of troops who have suffered such injuries is unknown, said Zampieri, of the Blinded Veterans Association. He provided one measure: Of the 8,298 troops medevaced from Iraq from March 19, 2003, to Sept. 17, 2007, 1,162, or 13 percent, had sustained eye trauma.
But the number of actual victims, not centrally tabulated, is probably higher because eye injuries are not solely the result of a direct hit, such as Castro and many others have suffered.
The BVA estimates that 54 percent of all the war’s roughly 7,000 traumatic brain injury or spinal-cord injury victims suffer post-traumatic visual impairment. Eye injuries are also particularly debilitating: In addition to the degradation or loss of vision, the visual system, the association says, is involved in 70 percent of the human body’s sensory processing.
“A lot of visibility has gone into amputees and TBI,” said Castro, who attended an Oct. 4 House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee hearing on Department of Veterans Affairs research programs, with his wife, Evelyn Galvis, at his side.
“Not much light has been given to people with eye injuries,” Castro said. “And the panel’s question about whether we have enough money? No!”
At least some help is on the way. The Senate’s version of the 2008 spending bill for the Defense Department includes an amendment that would establish a Center of Excellence for military eye injuries and an eye trauma registry that would ease follow-on care and help develop a database for best practices.
A stand-alone House bill recommends more research for traumatic eye injuries. And the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee has recommended that $480 million be spent this fiscal year on VA medical and prosthetics research.
But proponents say more funding is needed for specific research into eye injuries. Congress spent $4.8 million last fiscal year, but so far, nothing has been earmarked in any 2008 proposals, said Zampieri, one of the experts who testified before the House subcommittee.
“I look at this and say, is there something wrong with this picture?” he said. “The scary thing is, there might be zero [funding].”
Castro, who wants to continue serving as an Army trainer, and his wife want to see more research into advanced means of restoring sight.
VA investigators are developing behavioral strategies, although those are of no help to someone with injuries as catastrophic as Castro’s.
VA researchers are making progress on development of an artificial retina, although they say few of the injured will be able to benefit because of the devastating nature of many of the injuries.
Castro, who is getting fitted for a prosthetic right eye, lost the use of the retina in his left eye. He also may have suffered damage to the optic nerve.
But he holds out hope that advanced research into the use of embryonic stem cells to restore vision might be imported to the U.S. and that he and others might benefit from it.
Such efforts are underway in Britain, where scientists are using such cells to repair damaged retinas.
Ellie