Evaluating new types of tourniquets by the Israeli Naval special warfare unit.

Disaster and military medicine Pub Date : 2015-01-27 eCollection Date: 2015-01-01 DOI:10.1186/2054-314X-1-1
Eitan Heldenberg, Shahar Aharony, Tamir Wolf, Tali Vishne
{"title":"Evaluating new types of tourniquets by the Israeli Naval special warfare unit.","authors":"Eitan Heldenberg,&nbsp;Shahar Aharony,&nbsp;Tamir Wolf,&nbsp;Tali Vishne","doi":"10.1186/2054-314X-1-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Extremity injuries, which accounts for 20% of all battlefield injuries, result in 7-9% of deaths during military activity. Silicone tourniquets were used, by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers, for upper extremity and calf injuries, while thigh injuries were treated by an improvised \"Russian\" tourniquet (IRT). This is the first study, performed in the IDF, comparing the IRT with Combat Application Tourniquets (CAT) and Special Operations Force Tactical Tourniquets (SOFTT). 23 operators from the Israeli Naval Unit (Shayetet 13) were divided into two groups according to their medical training (11 operators trained as first-responders; 12 operators as medics). Repetitive applications of the three tourniquets over the thigh and upper arm, and self-application of the CAT and SOFTT over the dominant extremity were performed using dry and wet tourniquets (828 individual placements) with efficacy recorded. Cessation of distal arterial flow (palpation; Doppler ultrasound) confirmed success, while failure was considered in the advent of arterial flow or tourniquet instability. Satisfaction questionnaires were filled by the operators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CAT and SOFTT were found to be superior to the IRT, in occluding arterial blood flow to the extremities (22%, 23% and 38%, respectively, failure rate). The application was quicker for the CAT and SOFTT as compared to the IRT (18, 26, 52 seconds, respectively). Wet tourniquets neither prolonged application nor did they increase failure rates. Similarly, medics didn't have any advantage over non-medic operators. No findings indicated superiority of CAT and SOFTT over one another, despite operators' preference of CAT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CAT and SOFTT offer an effective alternative to the IRT in stopping blood flow to extremities. No difference was observed between medics and non-medic operators. Thus, the CAT was elected as the preferred tourniquet by our unit and it is being used by all the operators.</p>","PeriodicalId":91863,"journal":{"name":"Disaster and military medicine","volume":"1 ","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/2054-314X-1-1","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disaster and military medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/2054-314X-1-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

Abstract

Background: Extremity injuries, which accounts for 20% of all battlefield injuries, result in 7-9% of deaths during military activity. Silicone tourniquets were used, by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers, for upper extremity and calf injuries, while thigh injuries were treated by an improvised "Russian" tourniquet (IRT). This is the first study, performed in the IDF, comparing the IRT with Combat Application Tourniquets (CAT) and Special Operations Force Tactical Tourniquets (SOFTT). 23 operators from the Israeli Naval Unit (Shayetet 13) were divided into two groups according to their medical training (11 operators trained as first-responders; 12 operators as medics). Repetitive applications of the three tourniquets over the thigh and upper arm, and self-application of the CAT and SOFTT over the dominant extremity were performed using dry and wet tourniquets (828 individual placements) with efficacy recorded. Cessation of distal arterial flow (palpation; Doppler ultrasound) confirmed success, while failure was considered in the advent of arterial flow or tourniquet instability. Satisfaction questionnaires were filled by the operators.

Results: CAT and SOFTT were found to be superior to the IRT, in occluding arterial blood flow to the extremities (22%, 23% and 38%, respectively, failure rate). The application was quicker for the CAT and SOFTT as compared to the IRT (18, 26, 52 seconds, respectively). Wet tourniquets neither prolonged application nor did they increase failure rates. Similarly, medics didn't have any advantage over non-medic operators. No findings indicated superiority of CAT and SOFTT over one another, despite operators' preference of CAT.

Conclusions: CAT and SOFTT offer an effective alternative to the IRT in stopping blood flow to extremities. No difference was observed between medics and non-medic operators. Thus, the CAT was elected as the preferred tourniquet by our unit and it is being used by all the operators.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

以色列海军特种作战部队评估新型止血带。
背景:肢体伤害占所有战场伤害的20%,在军事活动中导致7-9%的死亡。以色列国防军(IDF)士兵使用硅胶止血带治疗上肢和小腿受伤,而大腿受伤则使用临时“俄罗斯”止血带(IRT)治疗。这是在以色列国防军进行的第一项研究,将IRT与战斗应用止血带(CAT)和特种作战部队战术止血带(SOFTT)进行比较。来自以色列海军部队的23名操作员(Shayetet 13)根据其医疗培训分为两组(11名操作员作为第一反应者接受培训;12名操作员(医务人员)。使用干式和湿式止血带在大腿和上臂重复使用三种止血带,并在主肢上自行使用CAT和SOFTT(828次单独放置),并记录疗效。末梢动脉血流停止(触诊;多普勒超声)证实成功,而在出现动脉血流或止血带不稳定时被认为是失败。由操作者填写满意度问卷。结果:CAT和SOFTT在阻断四肢动脉血流方面优于IRT(失败率分别为22%、23%和38%)。与IRT相比,CAT和SOFTT的应用程序更快(分别为18,26,52秒)。湿止血带既没有延长使用时间,也没有增加失败率。同样,医务人员与非医务人员相比也没有任何优势。没有发现表明CAT和SOFTT优于另一个,尽管运营商偏好CAT。结论:CAT和soft提供了一种有效的替代IRT停止血液流向四肢。在医务人员和非医务人员之间没有观察到差异。因此,CAT被我们单位选为首选止血带,并被所有操作人员使用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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