Google Analytics Alternative

Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

04/09/2016

2 garrots: Côte à côte SVP, mais attention

Pressures Under 3.8cm, 5.1cm, and Side-by-Side 3.8cm-Wide Tourniquets

-----------------------------

Plus un garrot est large et plus efficace il est. parmi les garrots en dotation le Garrot Delfi est le plus performant en terme d'occlusion. Néanmoins son emploi en première intention et hors un vecteur d'évacuation est difficilement envisageable. Aussi l'association de deux garrots apparaît elle très pertinente surtout si ces derniers sont posés côte à côte. Ce n'est pas pour autant une sécurité car en permettant l'obtention d'une pression d'occlusion plus basse, cette méthode expose à une occlusion insuffisante . Cette publication  a par ailleurs comme intérêt de montrer que la pression d'occlusion baisse avec le temps et ce dès les premières minutes. Il est fondamental d'apprécier TRES régulièrement  l'efficacité du garrot. Donc plutôt un garrot large d'emblée mais si l'on doit compléter poser le second à côté du premier. A noter que le garrot utilisé n'est pas en dotation dans l'armées US mais qu'il s'agit d'un des meilleurs garrots de dernière génération.

----------------------------- 

BACKGROUND:

Applications of wider tourniquet are expected to occlude arterial flow at lower pressures. We examined pressures under 3.8cm-wide, 5.1cm-wide, and side-by-side-3.8cm-wide nonelastic strap-based tourniquets.

METHODS:

Ratcheting Medical Tourniquets (RMT) were applied mid-thigh and mid-arm for 120 seconds with Doppler-indicated occlusion. The RMTs were a Single Tactical RMT (3.8cm-wide), a Wide RMT (5.1cm-wide), and Paired Tactical RMTs (7.6cm-total width). Tightening completion was measured at one-tooth advance past arterial occlusion, and paired applications involved alternating tourniquet tightening.

RESULTS:

All 96 applications on the 16 recipients reached occlusion. Paired tourniquets had the lowest occlusion pressures (ρ < .05). All pressures are given as median mmHg, minimum-maximum mmHg. Thigh application occlusion pressures were Single 256, 219-299; Wide 259, 203-287; Distal of Pair 222, 183-256; and Proximal of Pair 184, 160-236. Arm application occlusion pressures were Single 230, 189-294; Wide 212, 161-258; Distal of Pair 204, 193-254, and Proximal of Pair 168, 148-227. Pressure increases with the final tooth advance were greater for the 2 teeth/cm Wide than for the 2.5 teeth/cm Tacticals (ρ < .05). Thigh final tooth advance pressure increases were Single 40, 33-49; Wide 51, 37-65; Distal of Pair 13, 1-35; and Proximal of Pair 15, 0-30. Arm final tooth advance pressure increases were Single 49, 41-71; Wide 63, 48-77; Distal of Pair 3, 0-14; and Proximal of Pair 23, 2-35. Pressure decreases occurred under all tourniquets over 120 seconds. Thigh pressure decreases were Single 41, 32-75; Wide 43, 28-62; Distal of Pair 25, 16-37; and Proximal of Pair 22, 15-37. Arm pressure decreases were Single 28, 21-43; Wide 26, 16-36; Distal of Pair 16, 12-35; and Proximal of Pair 12, 5-24. Occlusion losses before 120 seconds occurred predominantly on the thigh and with paired applications (ρ < .05). Occlusion losses occurred in six Paired thigh applications, two Single thigh applications, and one Paired arm application.

CONCLUSIONS:

Side-by-side tourniquets achieve occlusion at lower pressures than single tourniquets. Additionally, pressure decreases undertourniquets over time; so all tourniquet applications require reassessments for continued effectiveness.

| Tags : tourniquet

Les commentaires sont fermés.