Slashdot Mirror
Blood Vessel Shunt May Save Limbs In War
The FDA has just approved for military use a shunt that allows partially-severed limbs to continue to get circulation. The FDA approved the device in a fast-track process lasting only a week. The article notes: "For most, it won't be a matter of saving a limb outright but rather salvaging the quality of a wounded leg or arm... The shunt may save injured limbs from amputation, since it can be implanted on the battlefield to maintain blood flow until a wounded soldier undergoes surgery, FDA officials said. Since the start of the Iraq war, more than 500 soldiers have lost limbs, many to injuries suffered in roadside bombings."
Time says the 500th amputee was a Corporal, injured on January 12th 2007.
So, back in early 2004, I was still working for Uncle sam & wearing a cute little uniform. I got into a (relatively minor, compared to what they went through) accident, and spent a bit of time at Bethesda. While I was in surgery & the ICU, my wife talked to four wives of Marines who had been shipped back to the US in the last week, all of whom were expected to survive. One of them had already lost about half his leg, and two of the remaining were expected to be paralyzed. So that makes me think that this "five hundred" figure is complete limb amputations - the guys who just lost a hand or a foot probably aren't counted in there. Nor are the guys (and some girls) who might be partially paralyzed for the rest of their lives.
Well, the figures for people with amputations aren't readibly available. What you can find, though, is the figures on total casualties. See this link. So we know that (as of Feb 2006), a total of 23,000 troops were wounded in action and survived, of which some 7000 required to be medevaced. (Hence my 7000 figure from the earlier post.) I've looked a bit, but I haven't seen any reports on the final disposition of those casualties - how many of those make full recoveries, how many are amputess, blind, deaf, or end up with medical discharges at some point.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
We've been hearing all along that the death toll is so much lower than previous US wars because of advances in trauma care that allow soldiers to survive injuries that were once not survivable, but we're seeing a huge increase in limb loss in the trade off.
I don't think you are quite getting that right. We are seeing an increase in the PERCENTAGE in the number of limbs amputated, from 1.4% for most of the 20th century to 2.4% in Iraq. The trade off isn't literal, there is a significant decrease in limb, as there is in overall mortality. New trauma care methods and new technology changed the divisions of the pie, but they made it much smaller too.
But there is no huge increase in limb loss.
Paper beats rock. Rock beats scissors. Science beats romance.
Most IED injuries are traumatic brain injuries. Those are concussions from the shockwave of the blast. 500 soldiers out of 3500 casualties is only 1/7th of the injuries, so why are you bitching about statistics.
You're missing part of the equation here. The 'fast-track' approval for the military (obviously) doesn't involve as rigorous testing as the standard civilian approval process.
The military is willing to accept medical devices that have been fast tracked. The civilian market is not - even if the FDA 'fast-tracked' something for the civilian market, nobody would likely use it because they wouldn't want to face the liability for using a device that hadn't gone through the 'real' testing.
You're also missing that the military environment is different. In Iraq, potential amputation injuries are frequent, and distance to proper care can be far. In the US, the usefulness of this device would be limited, as by the time someone who happened to have one of these devices got to you and it put in, you'd already be at the major trauma center anyway.
paintball
I bet a lot of the amputations don't count because they were done in the military hospital or Ramstein... just like all dead soldiers. They don't get into the official statistics of US Americans who died in this war when they die outside of Iraq, e.g. in a plane during transportation to Europe, or in a US Army hospital in Europe.
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
A partner of mine,who was an orthopaedic surgeon in Iraq for 4 years, did over 600 amputations, and he's just one surgeon.
That number is waaay lowballing the actual number.
..........FULL STOP.
While I did military service (in little Sweden), for instance, we quickly learnt that the reason that a 7.62 machine-gun bullet did less damage than a 5.56 assault rifle bullet was that the 7.62 bullet passed cleanly through the tissue. (in the case that it didn't hit anything major, of course.) Having higher weight but about the same speed means that it doesn't slow down as quickly, so it "just" goes in, and then out again leaving a small outgoing wound. While, on the other hand, a 5.56 bullet would start to tumble around inside whatever it hit, leaving a _much_ bigger outgoing wound.