4 ms·

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)

by 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.

by sebcat 13y ago

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.