4 ms·

'Game changer:' Tourniquet for abdominal wounds is already saving lives

112 points by shill 13y ago

nhebb 13y ago
If this works as reported, this is truly great. But you know what would save even more lives? If we got the f&ck out of Afghanistan. What are we even doing there? When is this last time a reporter asked the President about the Afghan war and when it will end? The tolerance of the current situation just baffles me.
- callmeed 13y ago
  I don't know if the sunk cost fallacy applies to politics and war but I suspect that comes into play here. Recent (July) articles indicate he's considering a withdrawal in 2014. This article is interesting as well http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/08/08/obama_sidesteps_afghan_war_--_with_medias_help_119533.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/08/08/obama_s...
  - rimantas 13y ago
    And just this morning in the news I heard about bigger plans for Syria than just a few air strikes.
- redrocket 13y ago
  "What are we even doing there?" Opium.
- pekk 13y ago
  We got out of Iraq and plenty of lives are still being lost there, even though the government is still in place. Afghanistan is a tougher case. They will lose even more lives.
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    The Iraqi government actually wants US troops to return... More than a bit ironic in a lot of ways.
ColinWright 13y ago
It is undeniable, but of real regret, that many major medical advances are made during wars. Even so, this is fantastic.
- eru 13y ago
  Wars mean lots of money is spend on stitching up people (and blowing them up in the first place). Without wars, we could save the resources used for the blowing up part.
  - mistercow 13y ago
    Yes, but we'd spend the savings on curing erectile dysfunction.
    - eru 13y ago
      Beats being blown to pieces. Also, please don't pretend erectile dysfunction is not a real problem to the people affected.
      - mistercow 13y ago
        Of course it is, but a far greater proportion of medical effort goes into fixing problems like ED than would be prescribed according to the utility of fixing them. The reason these things get the focus they do is because they're profitable. And that's the point: war makes research into treating basic trauma profitable in a way that everyday life doesn't. It's not worth it, but those are still the apparent facts. I mean, look at how low hanging the fruit described in the article is. If that were a device for making a man's penis hard, it would have been invented 15 years ago.
        carbocation 13y ago
        Sildenafil was invented for angina, for which it was ineffective. However, it was noted to cause erections (as a side-effect). This side effect was then approved as the primary indication for the medication. So the historical research into the drug was actually for the purpose of curing "serious" diseases, although I agree with eru that ED is a meaningful problem for those who are affected by it, and there is some serious utility gained from fixing the problem.
vxNsr 13y ago
Huge!! It's crazy how something so deceivingly simple took so long to invent.
baxter001 13y ago
As amazing as this is I can't help feeling a tinge of horror that it's even required.
- clarky07 13y ago
  it doesn't have to be a gunshot wound. it could just as easily save lives of people in car accidents.
  - usethisonce 13y ago
    Might be useful in some surgeries as well; like total hips.
mikemoka 13y ago
This could save many people back in the country as well, it would turn out to be impressively useful for car accidents or similar events, every ambulance should be required to carry it imho
sologoub 13y ago
Black Hawk Down has a scene where the difficulty of containing such injuries is illustrated very graphically: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gixRgsPFR7g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gixRgsPFR7g It's incredibly difficult to stop such bleeding and having such device will undoubtedly save lives on and off battle fields. For example in bad car wrecks.
sebcat 13y ago
Great product, I'm sure. CAT's should be mentioned too, they're used on arms and legs and can be applied quickly. Hope I'll never have to need one (not serving) 'preventable death'... Policy and politics has the ability to prevent death by greater numbers even before we feel the need to rupture the aortas of our fellow human beings. I'm curious, I was told most use cases of tourniques would require subsequent amputation. Is this the case here, as well? Do you amputate the pelvis? What would the life of a soldier look like in the hours, days after he received an injury to the abdomen and being saved by a device like this?
- dmckeon 13y ago
  For most practical purposes, use of a tourniquet implies a choice between death of patient and loss of limb. Part of the emphasis on this choice in first-aid classes is to keep people from over-using tourniquets for injuries which do not pose a risk of loss of life. A laceration to the hand can look awful, but some pressure and elevation can minimize blood loss even if definitive care is hours away without risking loss of the hand or forearm by using a tourniquet. In a massive trauma situation, such as from multiple penetrating wounds, if the patient bleeds out and dies, other tissue damage does not matter much. If the patient survives injuries that make it a good idea to block the abdominal aorta - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_aorta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_aorta then there is a good chance he/she has survived due to good and rapid field treatment, and rapid evacuation to a definitive care facility that can manage any other tissue damage caused by lack of circulation below the diaphragm.
- chacham15 13y ago
  > I'm curious, I was told most use cases of tourniques would require subsequent amputation. This is very vague. I was trained to tie tourniquets for the limbs (arms and legs). I was taught that it takes a few hours before cell death sets in and about four until complete loss of limbs. This means that if you can get the wounded to a hospital (or a well equipped surgeon) quickly enough, you can even save the limb. For other places like the abdomen and torso, the story is different.
sanderman 13y ago
Unfortunately what works in war doesn't necessarily work in peace. We though a couple decades ago that anti-shock garments (basically inflatable pants) save lives after trauma by redirecting blood to the core, but in reality it's likely that the practice causes harm, and you just never see them used anymore at all. (http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001856/no-evidence-that-medical-anti-shock-trousers-improve-survival-for-people-with-trauma-and-some-suggestion-they-may-worsen-outcomes-but-more-trials-are-needed http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001856/no-evidence-that-medi...)

112 points by shill 13y ago

nhebb 13y ago

If this works as reported, this is truly great. But you know what would save even more lives? If we got the f&ck out of Afghanistan. What are we even doing there? When is this last time a reporter asked the President about the Afghan war and when it will end? The tolerance of the current situation just baffles me.

callmeed 13y ago
I don't know if the sunk cost fallacy applies to politics and war but I suspect that comes into play here. Recent (July) articles indicate he's considering a withdrawal in 2014. This article is interesting as well http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/08/08/obama_sidesteps_afghan_war_--_with_medias_help_119533.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/08/08/obama_s...
- rimantas 13y ago
  And just this morning in the news I heard about bigger plans for Syria than just a few air strikes.
redrocket 13y ago
"What are we even doing there?" Opium.
pekk 13y ago
We got out of Iraq and plenty of lives are still being lost there, even though the government is still in place. Afghanistan is a tougher case. They will lose even more lives.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  The Iraqi government actually wants US troops to return... More than a bit ironic in a lot of ways.

ColinWright 13y ago

It is undeniable, but of real regret, that many major medical advances are made during wars. Even so, this is fantastic.

eru 13y ago
Wars mean lots of money is spend on stitching up people (and blowing them up in the first place). Without wars, we could save the resources used for the blowing up part.
- mistercow 13y ago
  Yes, but we'd spend the savings on curing erectile dysfunction.
  - eru 13y ago
    Beats being blown to pieces. Also, please don't pretend erectile dysfunction is not a real problem to the people affected.
    - mistercow 13y ago
      Of course it is, but a far greater proportion of medical effort goes into fixing problems like ED than would be prescribed according to the utility of fixing them. The reason these things get the focus they do is because they're profitable. And that's the point: war makes research into treating basic trauma profitable in a way that everyday life doesn't. It's not worth it, but those are still the apparent facts. I mean, look at how low hanging the fruit described in the article is. If that were a device for making a man's penis hard, it would have been invented 15 years ago.
      - carbocation 13y ago
        Sildenafil was invented for angina, for which it was ineffective. However, it was noted to cause erections (as a side-effect). This side effect was then approved as the primary indication for the medication. So the historical research into the drug was actually for the purpose of curing "serious" diseases, although I agree with eru that ED is a meaningful problem for those who are affected by it, and there is some serious utility gained from fixing the problem.

vxNsr 13y ago

Huge!! It's crazy how something so deceivingly simple took so long to invent.

baxter001 13y ago

As amazing as this is I can't help feeling a tinge of horror that it's even required.

clarky07 13y ago
it doesn't have to be a gunshot wound. it could just as easily save lives of people in car accidents.
- usethisonce 13y ago
  Might be useful in some surgeries as well; like total hips.

mikemoka 13y ago

This could save many people back in the country as well, it would turn out to be impressively useful for car accidents or similar events, every ambulance should be required to carry it imho

sologoub 13y ago

Black Hawk Down has a scene where the difficulty of containing such injuries is illustrated very graphically: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gixRgsPFR7g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gixRgsPFR7g It's incredibly difficult to stop such bleeding and having such device will undoubtedly save lives on and off battle fields. For example in bad car wrecks.

sebcat 13y ago

Great product, I'm sure. CAT's should be mentioned too, they're used on arms and legs and can be applied quickly. Hope I'll never have to need one (not serving) 'preventable death'... Policy and politics has the ability to prevent death by greater numbers even before we feel the need to rupture the aortas of our fellow human beings. I'm curious, I was told most use cases of tourniques would require subsequent amputation. Is this the case here, as well? Do you amputate the pelvis? What would the life of a soldier look like in the hours, days after he received an injury to the abdomen and being saved by a device like this?

dmckeon 13y ago
For most practical purposes, use of a tourniquet implies a choice between death of patient and loss of limb. Part of the emphasis on this choice in first-aid classes is to keep people from over-using tourniquets for injuries which do not pose a risk of loss of life. A laceration to the hand can look awful, but some pressure and elevation can minimize blood loss even if definitive care is hours away without risking loss of the hand or forearm by using a tourniquet. In a massive trauma situation, such as from multiple penetrating wounds, if the patient bleeds out and dies, other tissue damage does not matter much. If the patient survives injuries that make it a good idea to block the abdominal aorta - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_aorta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_aorta then there is a good chance he/she has survived due to good and rapid field treatment, and rapid evacuation to a definitive care facility that can manage any other tissue damage caused by lack of circulation below the diaphragm.
chacham15 13y ago
> I'm curious, I was told most use cases of tourniques would require subsequent amputation. This is very vague. I was trained to tie tourniquets for the limbs (arms and legs). I was taught that it takes a few hours before cell death sets in and about four until complete loss of limbs. This means that if you can get the wounded to a hospital (or a well equipped surgeon) quickly enough, you can even save the limb. For other places like the abdomen and torso, the story is different.

sanderman 13y ago

Unfortunately what works in war doesn't necessarily work in peace. We though a couple decades ago that anti-shock garments (basically inflatable pants) save lives after trauma by redirecting blood to the core, but in reality it's likely that the practice causes harm, and you just never see them used anymore at all. (http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001856/no-evidence-that-medical-anti-shock-trousers-improve-survival-for-people-with-trauma-and-some-suggestion-they-may-worsen-outcomes-but-more-trials-are-needed http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001856/no-evidence-that-medi...)