TQ vs pressure dressing

[Vendetta]

Part of what you're missing from some of these replies is that with the advent of body armor a larger percentage of serious wounds are going to be in the extremities. Certainly the sides are vulnerable, and inevitably shit will just happen. But I'm willing to bet that the statistics back that up.

John Doe as a citizen driving around town is more likely to come across someone with a crushed leg from a car accident, a missing hand from screwing around with a boat propeller, or a chainsaw accident than he is someone with holes in his torso from a gunfight.

Exactly.

I have applied a make shift TQ to a guy who was racing his friend in a SUV while he was riding a motor cycle. He center punched a light pole and severed his leg. I am not sure on this and am only throwing it out there, but I would bet there are more saved lives due to TQ's than there are pressure dressings.

[LMT Shooter]

[QUOTE=Vendetta;1718416]A pressure dressing is for a lower level of bleeding. Everyone wears clothes. Pressure dressings can be made out of t shirts. The idea is to have an absorbent piece of material and something to hold it down. Hands work well, as will another piece of clothing that you tore off to make that dressing.

QUOTE]

Bingo. Yes, this does increase the risk of infection, but those who bleed to death from extremity bleeding will never die from an infection.

[Sensei]

I've practiced emergency medicine for 10 years at multiple civilian level 1 trauma centers, 399th CSH Al Asad Iraq, and CJTF 82nd Afghanistan. This is in addition to thousands of hours of prehospital work as a paramedic before medschool and as a physician on Metro Lifeflight out of Cleveland, OH. I generally see 2-3 really FUBAR people per day.

Over 95% of the TQ's that I've used in my career have been on multiple extremity amputations from IED blasts. I've used maybe 1 or 2 TQ's for civilian industrial amputations. The only other civilian TQ that I recall using was for a high brachial artery knife wound where the laceration extended 20 cm from axilla to elbow along with a laceration through the contents of the right femoral triangle. This last TQ was a very unique situation caused by an hombre who knows how to use a knife. In other words, the actual need for a TQ in a civilian environment is actually very, very rare. I cannot recall using or needing a TQ for a civilian GSW in my career. That is because local, direct pressure is all that is needed to control even arterial bleeding from the vast majority of GSW injuries.

If I could only have one dressing, the Israeli Emergency Bandage would be my first choice. I've had great success with this dressing for 99% of the wounds that I've encountered outside of theater. It is also great for bleeding scalp wounds which are not amendable to a TQ .

[Hmac]

My experience over 30 years as a surgeon on call for trauma at two different hospitals mirrors Sensei's (although in this area, the trauma intensity is lower, there's less penetrating trauma, and time-to-ER is shorter by military standards). Over the years I've been here, a patient coming in with a tourniquet would be extraordinarily rare. Likewise chest seals of any kind.

Tourniquets are great tools. First responders (some locations more than others) should all have one in their bag and know how to use it for the very rare circumstance that they might need it. As for the rest of us, it's likely just another item of useless gear to lug around. OTOH, they're cheap, small, and generally unlikely to do harm. It's not a bad accessory for a civilian to add to their chest rig for just the right look. Along with a blood-type patch.

.

[Arctic1]

In a related discussion on another site, in regards to TQs for use on children, I suggested exploring different intervetions for haemorrhage control before using a TQ, like pressure points or direct pressure.

Someone stated that the use of pressure points/direct pressure was not taught as part of TCCC protocols, and used that fact as an indication of the ineffectiveness of those interventions.

While a TQ is very effective at what it's meant to do, it is a CUF intervention when you are in a situation where other interventions are not feasable. The TQ did not render pressure points/direct pressure obsolete.

As to the OP's question, what is the intended use for your setup? Are you LE/MIL? What other types of medical supplies do you carry?

The reasoning for Mr. Howe's TQ on the buttstock is that the rifle is usually always with him, so a TQ is readily available even if he isn't wearing his vest.

In a military unit, IFAK contents are pretty standard and the same across the board. The patients IFAK contents are for him. Same with the TQ, you preferably use the pt's TQ on them, not your own.

And, as others have stated, the incidence of penetrating trauma is a lot higher in war zones than back home.

So, if you are carrying essentially a bleeder kit, and you have a TQ on your chest rig and in you range bag. Supplement this with combat gauze, rolled gauze and a proper dressing and you will do fine. There really is no need to have medical gear on your gun.

[Sensei]

There really is no need to have medical gear on your gun.

It's not a bad accessory for a civilian to add to their chest rig for just the right look. Along with a blood-type patch.

Both of these fads seem to stem from the desire to look cool. They have essentially zero practical application. In the case of TQ's on a weapon, there is a very small chance of harm caused by snagging unintended objects.

As for the blood-type patches - it is safe for you to remove them. There is no medical facility in the US or the Middle East that is going to give you type-specific blood based on a patch that you wear on your sleeve or even your dog tags. Even if I wanted to do this, the blood bank at any reputable hospital would not release type-specific blood based on a patch unless they want the Joint Commission to shut them down. So, unless you are at the Battle of Kamdesh you can replace the blood-type patches with Jolly Roger.

[NeoNeanderthal]

Very interesting topic. I roll with a SWAT-T TQ on my buttstock. It is extremely low profile and nestles in the void of the ctr stock. Not as great as a CAT-TQ but it works as a TQ or pressure bandage. It's light small, and low pro so i don't worry about having it there. Might not look very cool, but I'm not a very cool looking guy anyway!

[Hmac]

Very interesting topic. I roll with a SWAT-T TQ on my buttstock. It is extremely low profile and nestles in the void of the ctr stock. Not as great as a CAT-TQ but it works as a TQ or pressure bandage. It's light small, and low pro so i don't worry about having it there. Might not look very cool, but I'm not a very cool looking guy anyway!

Are you a First Responder of some kind? Do you use such bandages much?

[NeoNeanderthal]

Are you a First Responder of some kind? Do you use such bandages much?

Nope, wilderness first responder certified, first aid, cpr ext. Never dealt with life threatening bleeding, just stitch worthy wounds and practice/play with tqs/pressure bandages at my WFR cert.

I know the limitations of the swat-t (hard to apply one handed and doesn't cut off blood flow as much as a real tq). It's there because it's much less of a snag hazard then a SWAT-T and can be used for other things (cut into strips for cordage, used as a sling, fire starter, attaching gear ext).

[Gutshot John]

hard to apply one handed and doesn't cut off blood flow as much as a real tq

It is a real TQ, surgical tourniquets are used in operating rooms all over the world, that's where the idea came from.

It's definitely harder to apply without a lot of practice, but it's very effective.