Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T06:50:37.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Survival Interval in Earthquake Entrapments: Research Findings Reinforced During the 2010 Haiti Earthquake Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2013

Anthony G. Macintyre ,
Joseph A. Barbera  and
Bruno P. Petinaux
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Earthquakes can result in collapsed structures with the potential to entrap individuals. In some cases, people can survive entrapment for lengthy periods. The search for and rescue of entrapped people is resource intensive and competes with other postdisaster priorities. The decision to end search and rescue activities is often difficult and in some cases protracted. Medical providers participating in response may be consulted about the probability of continued survival in undiscovered trapped individuals. Historically, many espouse a rigid time frame for viability of entrapped living people (eg, 2 days, 4 days, 14 days). The available medical and engineering data and media reports demonstrate a wide variety in survival “time to rescue,” arguing against the acceptance of a single time interval applicable to all incidents. This article presents historical evidence and reports from the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Factors that may contribute to survival after entombment are listed. Finally, a decision process for projecting viability that considers the critical factors in each incident rather than adhering to a single time frame for ceasing search and rescue activities is proposed. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:13–22)

Keywords

reviewsearthquakesstructure collapserescue worktime factorssurvivaldecision makingalgorithmsdisasterearthquaketime to rescueurban search and rescueHaiti
Type
Review Article
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 13 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Barbera, JA, Macintyre, A.Urban search and rescue. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 1996;14 (2):399–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. Geneva: The Sphere Project; 2004.Google Scholar
3.Macintyre, AG, Barbera, JA, Smith, ER.Surviving collapsed structure entrapment after earthquakes: a “time-to-rescue” analysis. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2006;21 (1):4–17, discussion 18-19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Barbera, JA, Cadoux, CG.Search, rescue, and evacuation. Crit Care Clin. 1991;7 (2):321–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Safar, P.Resuscitation potentials in mass disasters. Prehosp Disaster Med. 1986;2:34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Noji, EK, Kelen, GD, Armenian, HK, Oganessian, A, Jones, NP, Sivertson, KT.The 1988 earthquake in Soviet Armenia: a case study. Ann Emerg Med. 1990;19 (8):891–897.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Durkin, M, Coulson, A, Ohashi, H.Casualties, survival, and entrapment in heavily damaged buildings. In: Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; August 2-9, 1988; Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
8.Murakami, H, Takemoto, T, Sakamoto, K.Study of search and rescue operations in the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji earthquake: analysis of labor work in relation with building types. In: Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; January 30-February 4, 2000; Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
9.Lu, H, Kohiyama, M, Horie, K.Building damage and casualties after an earthquake: relationship between building damage pattern and casualty determined using housing damage photographs in the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji earthquake disaster. Nat Hazards. 2003;29:387–403.Google Scholar
10.Van Der Tol, A, Hussain, A, Sever, MS.Impact of local circumstances on outcome of renal casualties in major disasters. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;24 (3):907–912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.de Bruycker, M, Greco, D, Annino, I.The 1980 earthquake in southern Italy: rescue of trapped victims and mortality. Bull World Health Organ. 1983;61 (6):1021–1025.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Noji, EK, Armenian, HK, Oganessian, A.Issues of rescue and medical care following the 1988 Armenian earthquake. Int J Epidemiol. 1993;22 (6):1070–1076.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.de Ville de Goyet, C.Stop propagating disaster myths. Prehosp Disaster Med. 1999;14 (4):213–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Klain, M, Ricci, E, Safar, P.Disaster reanimatology potentials: a structured interview study in Armenia. I: Methodology and preliminary results. Prehosp Disaster Med. 1989;4:135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.López, MI, León, NA.Babies of the earthquake: follow-up study of their first 15 months. Hillside J Clin Psychiatry. 1989;11 (2):147–168.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Sever, MS, Erek, E, Vanholder, R.Lessons learned from the Marmara disaster: Time period under the rubble. Crit Care Med. 2002;30 (11):2443–2449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Sheng, ZY.Medical support in the Tangshan earthquake: a review of the management of mass casualties and certain major injuries. J Trauma. 1987;27 (10):1130–1135.Google ScholarPubMed
18.Li, W, Qian, J, Liu, X.Management of severe crush injury in a front-line tent ICU after 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China: an experience with 32 cases. Crit Care. 2009;13 (6):R17819895693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Quan, Y, Pan, X, Deng, S.Features of crush injury in Wenchuan earthquake and the corresponding operational methods [in Chinese]. Chin J Repar Reconst Surg. 2009;23:549–551.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Erek, E, Sever, MS, Serdengeçti, KTurkish Study Group of Disaster. An overview of morbidity and mortality in patients with acute renal failure due to crush syndrome: the Marmara earthquake experience.Nephrol Dial Transplant2002;17 (1):33–40.Google ScholarPubMed
21.Coulson, A.Epidemiologic concepts and earthquake injury research in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Earthquake Injury Epidemiology for Mitigation and Response, 10-12 July, 1989. Ed. Jones NP, Noji EK, Krimgold F, Smith GS. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1989.Google Scholar
22.Wagner, R, Jones, N, Smith, G.Study methods and progress report: a case control study of physical injuries associated with the earthquake in the county of Santa Cruz. In: Tubbesing S, ed. The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989. Loss Estimation and Procedures. Professional Paper 1553-A. Washington, DC: US Geological Survey; 1994:39-62.Google Scholar
23.Family scoffs at woman's quake survival story. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/12/15/1134500962208.html. Published December 16, 2005. Accessed September 24, 2010.Google Scholar
24.British Broadcasting Corporation. Haiti quake: survivor stories. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8459090.stm. Accessed September 24, 2010.Google Scholar
25.Pavia, WRico Dibrivell pulled alive from Haiti rubble two weeks after quake. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7004174.ece. Published January 27, 2010. Accessed October 4, 2010.Google Scholar
26.Girl rescued 2 weeks after Haiti quake. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/01/27/haiti-survivor.html. Published January 27, 2010. Accessed October 4, 2010.Google Scholar
27.Hedgpeth, D, Slevin, PGirl's rescue 15 days after quake offers a rare moment of joy in devastated Haiti. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012704250.html. Published January 28, 2010. Accessed January 12, 2011.Google Scholar
28.Dodds, PDoctor says vendor may have been in rubble 27 days. http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/national_world&id=7268786. Published March 4, 2011. Accessed September 24, 2010.Google Scholar
29.Dodds, PRiddle of rice seller rescued after 27 days in Haiti earthquake rubble. http://news.scotsman.com/world/Riddle-of-rice.6062037.jp. Published February 11, 2010. Accessed October 4, 2010.Google Scholar
30.Goddard, JEvan's 27 days: longest ordeal under debris. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100329/jsp/foreign/story_12274902.jsp#. Published March 29, 2010. Accessed October 5, 2010.Google Scholar
31.Coburn, A, Spence, R, Pomonis, A.Factors determining human casualty levels in earthquakes: mortality prediction in building collapse. In: Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Rotterdam: Balkema, Rotterdam; July 19-24, 1992: 59–89.Google Scholar
32.Wen, J, Shi, YK, Li, YP.Risk factors of earthquake inpatient death: a case control study. Crit Care. 2009;13 (1):R2419243616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Stockton, WMexico's entombed babies win the fight for life. http://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/16/world/mexico-s-entombed-babies-win-the-fight-for-life.html. Published October 16, 1985. Accessed October 5, 2010.Google Scholar
34.Cody, E.Babies saved in Mexico: last-ditch effort made to find survivors. Washington Post. September 26, 1985: A1.Google Scholar
35.Durkin, M.Behavior of building occupants in earthquakes. Earthq Spectra. 1985;1:271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.Armenian, HK, Noji, EK, Oganesian, AP.A case-control study of injuries arising from the earthquake in Armenia, 1988. Bull World Health Organ. 1992;70 (2):251–257.Google ScholarPubMed
37.Angus, DC, Pretto, EA, Abrams, JIDisaster Reanimatology Study Group (DRSG). Epidemiologic assessment of mortality, building collapse pattern, and medical response after the 1992 earthquake in Turkey. Prehosp Disaster Med. 1997;12 (3):222–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Associated Press. Cook rescued after 14 days in quake ruins. Tor Star. July 20, 1990:A2.Google Scholar
39.North, N.Quake brothers rescued after 130 hours in rubble; coming up trumps: played bridge while entombed in wreckage. Daily Record. September 27, 1999: 10.Google Scholar
40.Papadopoulos, IN, Kanakaris, N, Triantafillidis, A, Stefanakos, J, Kainourgios, A, Leukidis, C.Autopsy findings from 111 deaths in the 1999 Athens earthquake as a basis for auditing the emergency response. Br J Surg. 2004;91 (12):1633–1640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Chen, G, Lai, W, Liu, F.The dragon strikes: lessons from the Wenchuan earthquake. Anesth Analg. 2010;110 (3):908–915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Better, OS.The crush syndrome revisited (1940-1990). Nephron. 1990;55 (2):97–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43.Ensari, C, Tüfekçioglu, O, Ayli, D, Gümüs, T, Izdes, S, Turanli, S.Response to delayed fluid therapy in crush syndrome. Nephron. 2002;92 (4):941–943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44.Sever, MS, Vanholder, R, Lameire, N.Management of crush-related injuries after disasters. N Engl J Med. 2006;354 (10):1052–1063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Durkin, M, Murakami, H.Casualties, survival, and entrapment in heavily damaged buildings. In: Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; August 2-9, 1988; Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
46.Horie, K, Hayashi, H, Okimura, T.Development of seismic risk assessment method reflecting building damage levels—fragility functions for complete collapse of wooden buildings. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; August 1-6, 2004; Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
47.Chou, YJ, Huang, N, Lee, CH, Tsai, SL, Chen, LS, Chang, HJ.Who is at risk of death in an earthquake? Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160 (7):688–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48.Field Operations Guide for the National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response System. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, DC; 2003:IV2-IV15.Google Scholar
49.International Search and Rescue Advisory Group. Guidelines and Methodology. Field Coordination Support Section (FCSS), Officer for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Geneva: United Nations; 2010:92-98.Google Scholar
50.Jain, SK.Implications of 2001 Bhuj [Gujarat] earthquake for seismic risk reduction in India. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; August 1-6, 2004; Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar