• John F Kragh, Michelle L O'Neill, Thomas J Walters, Michael A Dubick, David G Baer, Charles E Wade, John B Holcomb, and Lorne H Blackbourne.
• U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, 3611 Rawley E. Chambers Avenue, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA.
• Mil Med. 2011 Oct 1; 176 (10): 1144-52.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to report the device lessons learned from an emergency tourniquet program and, in particular, to emphasize analysis of discarded devices recovered after clinical use.MethodsDiscarded tourniquet devices were analyzed after use in emergency care of war casualties to determine wear and tear patterns, effectiveness rates, and associations among device designs.ResultsThe 159 devices recovered comprised seven designs. Emergency & Military Tourniquet (92%) and Combat Application Tourniquet (79%) effectiveness rates were significantly different from each other and better than other tourniquets (p < 0.002) as the most effective ambulance and field tourniquets, respectively. Designs had specific pitfalls (e.g., sand-clogged ratchets) and strengths (the pneumatic design was least painful). Every device had wear, abrasions, or deformity about the band edges or bladder. User understanding of how devices work best helped attain better results. Some desirable traits (e.g., one-handed application, use for entrapped limbs) were rarely needed. Tourniquets fit casualty limbs well.ConclusionsCorrect user actions (e.g., following the instructions to remove slack before twisting) led to device effectiveness, but misuse did not. Users often assumed that optimal use required more force, but this was associated with misuse. Training should include tourniquet pearls and pitfalls.

9 keywords...

hide…