

'Game changer:' Tourniquet for abdominal wounds is already saving lives - shill
http://www.stripes.com/news/game-changer-tourniquet-for-abdominal-wounds-is-already-saving-lives-1.235791

======
sebcat
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
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.

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

~~~
eru
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
Yes, but we'd spend the savings on curing erectile dysfunction.

~~~
eru
Beats being blown to pieces.

Also, please don't pretend erectile dysfunction is not a real problem to the
people affected.

~~~
mistercow
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
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.

~~~
mistercow
That's true, although while noticing the effect from a drug gets a good chunk
of the way there, there's still a huge amount of effort after that which goes
into getting it approved and to market. And vardenafil seems to have been
researched purely with ED in mind.

That said, ED isn't really a perfect poster child for the kind of medical
research I'm talking about. It's just the best one to use with a one-liner
because it conveys the point effectively, and because penises are funny. Other
examples include treatments for male pattern baldness and second/third
generation antihistamines.

With the former, the pharmacological options are all again opportunistic
situations, although the point about investing in getting them to market still
applies. With the latter, that is not the case. And although there's no
denying that they have vastly improved the quality of life for people with
serious allergy problems, there's also no denying that the main reason for the
investment put into them was helping people with the spring sniffles (as
evidenced by the fact that their approved doses are set so low that they are
barely of any use to anyone (otherwise they wouldn't have passed muster for
"non-drowsy" so that they could get fast track approval from the FDA)).

------
nhebb
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
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_s...](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/08/08/obama_sidesteps_afghan_war_
--_with_medias_help_119533.html)

~~~
rimantas
And just this morning in the news I heard about bigger plans for Syria than
just a few air strikes.

------
sologoub
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.

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

------
sanderman
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-
medi...](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))

------
baxter001
As amazing as this is I can't help feeling a tinge of horror that it's even
required.

~~~
clarky07
it doesn't have to be a gunshot wound. it could just as easily save lives of
people in car accidents.

~~~
usethisonce
Might be useful in some surgeries as well; like total hips.

------
mikemoka
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

