Who needs a tourniquet? And who does not? Lessons learned from a review of tourniquet use in the Russo-Ukrainian war
Frank Butler,John B. Holcomb,Warren Dorlac,Jennifer Gurney,Kenji Inaba,Lenworth Jacobs,Bob Mabry,Mike Meoli,Harold Montgomery,Mel Otten,Stacy Shackelford,Matthew D. Tadlock,Justin Wilson,Kostiantyn Humeniuk,Oleksandr Linchevskyy,Oleksandr Danyliuk
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0000000000004395
2024-07-14
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
Abstract:Extremity tourniquets have proven to be lifesaving in both civilian and military settings and should continue to be used by first responders for trauma patients with life-threatening extremity bleeding. This is especially true in combat scenarios in which both the casualty and the first responder may be confronted by the imminent threat of death from hostile fire as the extremity hemorrhage is being treated. Not every extremity wound, however, needs a tourniquet. One of the most important aspects of controlling life-threatening extremity bleeding with tourniquets is to recognize what magnitude of bleeding requires this intervention and what magnitude of bleeding does not. Multiple studies, both military and civilian, have shown that tourniquets are often applied when they are not medically indicated. Overuse of extremity tourniquets has not caused excess morbidity in either the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan or in the US urban civilian setting. In the presence of prolonged evacuation, however, applying a tourniquet when it is not medically indicated changes tourniquet application from being a lifesaving intervention to one that may cause an avoidable amputation and the development of an array of metabolic derangements and acute kidney injury collectively called prolonged tourniquet application syndrome.
surgery,critical care medicine