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."

Comments

Even better

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Peace may save limbs lost in war.

In short: stop warmongering, and soldiers will stay in one piece.

Re:Even better

[Sinryc]

If that is the case, you would have to tell it to every Democrat that voted for the war as well.

Re:Even better

[Anonymous Coward]

I never endorsed war, I was just making the point that the countries involved were forced into it.

Huh? You have a very bizarre definition of "forced".

What should they have done? Saddam had several "Palaces" that Hans Blix's inspection team were not allowed into, should the USA et al have just sat on their hands whilst Saddam was potentially manufacturing WMDs?

The whole WMD argument never really made much sense. For one thing, of the various so called "WMD", only nuclear weapons were substantially more effective that traditional weapons. Sure, you could potentially kill 100,000 people in a packed football stadium with sarin but you could also do that with any number of conventional weapons. Biological weapons sound scary because you don't need very much of the agent itself but for effective dispersal you need large and sophisticated equipment and you also need to infect people without them knowing or they just take antibiotics.

Even supposing the WMD in question could actually take out all of Manhattan, you have this bizarre situation where if Saddam has the WMD (and is not using them - a factual observation) then invading is likely to make him use them which is going to result in the destruction of NYC. In other words, if Saddam actually had real WMD then it would have been foolish to invade. On the other hand, if Saddam didn't have WMD then it's kind of hard to justify invading.

The only way you could justify invading would be if you knew that Saddam did not have WMD but that Saddam was only months from producing them. If Saddam was years away from having them then there would be time for other approaches besides all out invasion. Now, suppose you're right. Suppose that the USA knew that Saddam did not have WMD and also knew that Saddam was months away from producing WMD that could take out all of Manhattan. In that case, the USA goes to Saddam and says "OK, Kid. We have all this specific intelligence about what you're doing and you either need to stop and let the weapons inspectors verify it or we're going to invade.

You may claim that's what the USA did but you'd be making it up. The USA didn't even let the weapons inspectors finish their inspections. Hans Blix kept saying to the USA "Tell me where to inspect" and the USA was like "Well, we don't really know but we're sure it's there somewhere". The thing is, the USA wasn't sure. In fact, we now know that the Bush adminstration had created certain groups within the Pentagon to make the stuff up.

PS. I'm not the original AC who responded to you but the reason I'm posting AC is because I have a motto "Don't mess with mean stupid people" - not because I'm a coward: I just don't see the point. If you're claiming that the USA was forced to invade Iraq then you are either mean or stupid. For all I know, if you knew my real identity then you would believe that you were "forced" to hack my computer and delete my files. I don't see the point of leaving myself open to that kind of annoyance. It's the ideas that matter and they will be out there regardless of how they are posted.

Re:Even better

[LionKimbro]

How does that make sense?

The original poster said: tell it to bush and the republicans, we wouldn't be in there if it weren't for them

You reply with: If that is the case, you would have to tell it to every Democrat that voted for the war as well.

Democrat congresspeople voted for the war, it is true. But most of the Democrats that I know were against the war from the beginning. It was the Republican population that was supporting the war.

Do you remember that neat little debate, within the population? Do you remember how divided everyone was, and how the newspapers were writing about it? The "misinformed" + "watching Fox News" numbers going around? Remember?

Now, if the Republican population had been against the war, none of this would have happened.

Us non-Congressperson Democrats were firmly against the war in Iraq. We said things like, "We don't believe that there are WMD there," we said things like, "Let's listen to the inspectors," we said things like, "This evidence is really shoddy," and we said "This is going to be a disaster. You can't spread Democracy like this." We said all sorts of things. And you know what? We were right on just about every damn single one of them!

It was the Republican-voting population that allowed for this present reality to exist.

Not the Democrats' population.

So, tell it to the Republicans: Stop warmongering, and soldiers will stay in one piece.

Only 500?

[Weston O'Reilly]

Only 500 soldiers have lost limbs since the start of the war? Why does that sound so unlikely? 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.

Does anyone know if this statistic is accurate?

Re:Only 500?

[dave420]

Time says the 500th amputee was a Corporal, injured on January 12th 2007.

Re:Only 500?

[jofer]

Accidentally modded you as a troll, replying to negate the moderation... Sorry 'bout that! Back on the topic, I think the primary reason the number of amputees is so "low" is due mainly to the advances in medicine since, say, the Vietnam War, rather than under-reporting of the actual number. A lot of limbs can be saved now that couldn't have been even ten years ago... On a more gruesome side note, I'd imagine they're not including "minor" extremities such as fingers, toes, etc. in that particular number...

Re:Only 500?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Only 500?

[janeowit]

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.

Re:Only 500?

[M4N14C]

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.

Re:Only 500?

[quigonn]

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.

Re:Only 500?

[fuego451]

Well one of the factors in the smaller size of ammunition these days is that that the smaller rounds cause less immediate death and catastrophic injuries

Not exactly true. A .223 caliber bullet from an M-16 often causes much more damage than an 7.62mm bullet from an AK-47 because the .223 has a much higher muzzle velocity and, therefore, more energy. Of course, it depends on where on the body the bullet hits as well. A bullet striking bone causes more tissue damage and can be deflect causing further damage.

As a paramedic in an area with a lot of gangs, .22 cal wounds were very often more serious than those caused by larger calibers.

Re:Only 500?

[bakuun]

It's not just that higher muzzle velocity gives more damages. It can actually be the other way around, as well.

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.

War is ugly.

[Reservoir Penguin]

Is it just another hi-tech gadget to shield yourself from the reality of war? Please, just stop and take you soldiers home, our president Putin is right that the US has overstepped it's national boundaries. Starting wars on tampered evidence, fueling the new nuclear arms race and destroying the MAD balance with missile defense programs. I'm serious, please make your government stop this descent into madness.

Re:Not to argue semantics...

[Chmcginn]

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.

Re:Not to argue semantics...

[maxume]

How many amputees do you see in a normal month?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 8,450 amputations in 2005, with 5,780 being fingertips and another 2,300 involving fingers. That leaves 370 other injuries. It reports 190 injuries for hands and feet, leaving 180 injuries that involve loss of limb. Link:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/case/ostb1669.txt

I'm comfortable assuming people get hurt working a lot more often than playing, so there are something like 400 injuries a year that involve very high loss of functionality(I wouldn't even want to lose one finger, but a hand is a whole nother level). Soldiers are generally young and active, and they have excellent medical care, so I can see how several hundred amputees a year would contribute significantly to research.

What the hell is wrong with all of you?

[TheFlyingGoat]

Sure, it would be nice to not be in Iraq, but the fact remains that we're there and we're not pulling out anytime soon. Even if we were pulling out of Iraq immediately, there will be other wars in the world. This technology has nothing to do with politics, so knock it off.

I'm not that familiar with battlefield medicine, but this seems like a big step forward for it. Anything that helps soldiers (American or otherwise) do their jobs better, protects them, or helps them live better lives after conflict is a good thing.

Re:Interesting statistics there.

[lav-chan]

Uh. The same reason football players can't keep playing professionally after they've fucked up their knees?

Just because it's still connected doesn't mean it's still functional.

Why do you assume the standards are not objective?

[raehl]

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.

Just so SOMEBODY does it.....

[LibertineR]

Whether you are for the war or against it, I sleep better at night knowing that there are men and women who volunteer for service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

If a serviceman/woman happens to read this and other Slashdot threads, you have my thanks and admiration.

Re:Just so SOMEBODY does it.....

[Anonymous Coward]

...I sleep better at night knowing that there are men and women who volunteer for service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

I would sleep better if there were more men and women who refused to serve in Iraq on the grounds that starting a war without international approval is a war crime. I would feel genuinely proud to be American. I'd be like "Yeah, those Nazi soldiers just followed orders but Americans are better. Americans think for themselves and don't let their leaders force them into fighting (and eventually losing) wars of aggression".

But, if unquestioning loyalty to leaders of questionable judgement is really what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, then may I suggest moving to North Korea. I hear that obediance to authority is something they do very well in North Korea.

Re:Just so SOMEBODY does it.....

[localman]

The anonymous parent post, flagged as flamebait, is dead on. It's just so dead on it's sad. And I'll be proud to be modded down as well.

I just wish there was some way for the tiny minority who knew full well in advance that this war was a bad idea could have actually stopped it. But that's not how the world works. The hotblooded masses create a mess like this and then when it becomes obvious, they just embitter themselves against those who warned them rather than learn or admit they were wrong. Whatever.

And of course this is an appropriate venue for this dissent: it's a serious fucking war. It's more important than anything. If you're complaining about the subtleties of message board etiquitte you may want to rethink your priorities.

Way more than 500

[spineboy]

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.

Re:You know

[SummitCO]

Actually, a great number of Iraqi casualties are treated by US forces.

They're only counting Americans

[Gorimek]

The article, and the discussion here, only considers Americans. In reality, there is probably over 10 injured Iraqis for every injured American.

The inability of the average American to even consider this can be seen as the whole problem of this war in a nut shell, if you're in a grumpy mood.

An other mathematical factor is that you can amputate 600 limbs on only 150 people.

Re:They're only counting Americans

[bhaberman]

What about heads?

Re:Bury your head in the sand

[anagama]

Nobody thinks the world would be at peace. But we wouldn't have fucked up Iraq. Saddam was no hero, but his was a secular regime hated by those who hate us. All we've done is give them another country to turn into a theocracy. At this point, there is no hope for the next three decades at minimum. Either we stay there till it is even more obviously impossible, at which point the anti-US theocracy takes over and 30-40 years later, tensions ease (think Viet Nam). Or we leave now, the theocracy takes over, and 30-40 years later tensions ease. This is all Bush's fault. Oh, and Nader's.

Too damned funny,

[Khyber]

"Since the start of the Iraq war, more than 500 soldiers have lost limbs, many to injuries suffered in roadside bombings."

Guess we didn't learn from the landmines of WWII almost 60 fucking years ago, did we? Did D-day slip our minds? War isn't fucking pleasant. Failure to learn from past mistakes only leads to drastic future mistakes.