{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Thee Warriors
Edited by Progo:
6/5/2014 2:25:21 AM
1
To me, the biggest deal is whether it can be used often enough to justify it's presence in a first aid kit. It probably weighs an ounce or two, and isn't very small.
Also, I totally respect your medical authority, but in our modern military soldiers wear advanced body armor on their chests and backs, I think limb injury is the big deal here, and I think that's the type of wound where this would work best. (Vs just packing the wound by hand)
English
-
Edited by bobcast: 6/5/2014 2:49:50 AMExtremity injuries, especially vascular injuries in the extremities now one of the leading causes of death in combat.* I looked this thing up at work, specifically for the FDA approval. Essentially the device is only approved for wounds to the extremities. That being said, I still believe the tourniquet is superior. The tourniquet gets a bad rap in the lay public. There is often this idea by the lay public that if a tourniquet is applied, the person will have to have that limb amputated. This simply isn't true. The recent wars in the middle east has proven that tourniquets are safe and effective, and even when incorrectly used they rarely resulted in lasting injury. They only way to know what works better is to do a head to head study, where some causalities get the xstat and others the status quo. *It is not the leading cause of death, but it is the leading cause of preventable battlefield death.
