Assessment of proprietary and improvised pelvic binders: time to application and displacement during casualty evacuation.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Thomas John Howe, H Claireaux, G Morgan, L McMenemy, S D Masouros, A Ramasamy
{"title":"Assessment of proprietary and improvised pelvic binders: time to application and displacement during casualty evacuation.","authors":"Thomas John Howe, H Claireaux, G Morgan, L McMenemy, S D Masouros, A Ramasamy","doi":"10.1136/military-2024-002865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pelvic injuries resulting from high-energy trauma have an approximately 10% mortality rate. Suspected pelvic injuries are treated with pelvic binders to stabilise fractured bones and promote tamponade until surgical treatment. The effectiveness of pelvic binders in reducing mortality risk depends on accurate positioning of the binder. This study quantifies the ability of proprietary and improvised pelvic binders to maintain their positioning during a simulated casualty evacuation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One improvised and three proprietary pelvic binders were tested in their ability to maintain their initial placement. Combat Medical Technicians applied binders to healthy subjects and then performed a simulated casualty evacuation. The time taken to apply each binder was measured. The evacuation consisted of: 20 m casualty drag, transfer onto a soft stretcher, 100 m evacuation on a soft stretcher, transfer onto a rigid stretcher and transfer into a field ambulance. Binder placement was measured using bony landmarks after the initial positioning and after each phase of the simulated casualty evacuation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The field-expedient pelvic splint (FEPS), SAM Pelvic Sling II (SAM) and T-POD Pelvic Stabilisation Device (TPOD) all remained within 45 mm of vertical displacement from their initial placement, which is considered an acceptable range for optimal binder functionality. The Prometheus Pelvic Splint (PROM) fell within this range in 83% of trials. The SAM was the fastest binder to apply, followed by the TPOD, and then the FEPS and PROM which took similar times to apply.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Binders were mostly able to maintain their positioning during the simulated casualty evacuations carried out in this study but differed in their application times. The improvised binder (FEPS) performed comparably to the proprietary binders tested, and its low cost and weight make it a good alternative to proprietary binders in the austere environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":48485,"journal":{"name":"Bmj Military Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bmj Military Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/military-2024-002865","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Pelvic injuries resulting from high-energy trauma have an approximately 10% mortality rate. Suspected pelvic injuries are treated with pelvic binders to stabilise fractured bones and promote tamponade until surgical treatment. The effectiveness of pelvic binders in reducing mortality risk depends on accurate positioning of the binder. This study quantifies the ability of proprietary and improvised pelvic binders to maintain their positioning during a simulated casualty evacuation.

Methods: One improvised and three proprietary pelvic binders were tested in their ability to maintain their initial placement. Combat Medical Technicians applied binders to healthy subjects and then performed a simulated casualty evacuation. The time taken to apply each binder was measured. The evacuation consisted of: 20 m casualty drag, transfer onto a soft stretcher, 100 m evacuation on a soft stretcher, transfer onto a rigid stretcher and transfer into a field ambulance. Binder placement was measured using bony landmarks after the initial positioning and after each phase of the simulated casualty evacuation.

Results: The field-expedient pelvic splint (FEPS), SAM Pelvic Sling II (SAM) and T-POD Pelvic Stabilisation Device (TPOD) all remained within 45 mm of vertical displacement from their initial placement, which is considered an acceptable range for optimal binder functionality. The Prometheus Pelvic Splint (PROM) fell within this range in 83% of trials. The SAM was the fastest binder to apply, followed by the TPOD, and then the FEPS and PROM which took similar times to apply.

Conclusions: Binders were mostly able to maintain their positioning during the simulated casualty evacuations carried out in this study but differed in their application times. The improvised binder (FEPS) performed comparably to the proprietary binders tested, and its low cost and weight make it a good alternative to proprietary binders in the austere environment.

评估专有和临时骨盆粘合剂:时间的应用和位移在伤员撤离。
导读:高能创伤引起的骨盆损伤死亡率约为10%。疑似骨盆损伤用骨盆粘合剂治疗以稳定骨折骨并促进填塞直至手术治疗。骨盆黏结物降低死亡风险的有效性取决于黏结物的准确定位。本研究量化了专有和临时骨盆粘合剂在模拟伤员疏散期间保持其定位的能力。方法:一个临时和三个专有骨盆粘合剂测试他们的能力,以保持其初始位置。战斗医疗技术人员将粘合剂应用于健康受试者,然后进行模拟伤员撤离。测量了应用每种粘合剂所需的时间。撤离包括:拖送20米伤员,转移到软担架上,用软担架转移100米,转移到硬担架上,然后转移到野战救护车上。在初始定位和模拟伤员撤离的每个阶段之后,使用骨标记测量粘合剂放置。结果:现场使用的盆腔夹板(FEPS)、SAM骨盆吊带II (SAM)和T-POD盆腔稳定装置(TPOD)都保持在其初始位置45毫米的垂直位移范围内,这被认为是最佳绑定功能的可接受范围。普罗米修斯骨盆夹板(PROM)在83%的试验中都在这个范围内。SAM是应用最快的粘结剂,其次是TPOD,然后是FEPS和PROM,它们的应用时间相似。结论:在本研究中进行的模拟伤员疏散中,粘合剂大多能够保持其位置,但其应用时间不同。临时粘结剂(FEPS)的性能与专有粘结剂相当,其低成本和重量使其成为恶劣环境下专有粘结剂的良好替代品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bmj Military Health
Bmj Military Health MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
116
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信