Search

ObjectiveField tourniquets are often used for battlefield extremity injuries. Their effectiveness has been documented by a large combat theater trauma center. However, their use and effectiveness by an austere forward surgical team has not been reported. Aims of this study were to determine: Whether field tourniquets: (1) Were placed for appropriate indications; (2) significantly reduced hemorrhage as measured by transfusion requirements; (3) influenced vital signs and injury severity scores; and (4) did they cause limb amputation, changed amputation level, or other complications.MethodsTwenty-five patients with 30 involved extremities presenting to a forward surgical team in Iraq met the inclusion criteria. We prospectively collected data regarding the presence, indications for, and effectiveness of field tourniquets based on the need for blood transfusion. We recorded any complications associated with their use.ResultsTourniquets significantly reduced hemorrhage from penetrating injuries as measured by transfusion requirements. Those having major vascular injuries with effective tourniquets, a total of 12 units of blood were transfused (1.7 units/vascular injury; 2 units/patient). However, 19 units were transfused in patients (3.3 units/vascular injury; 3.8 units/patient) who had an ineffective or no tourniquet (p = 0.0006). Transfusion requirements were related the presence of an effective tourniquet regardless of concomitant injuries. The group with effective tourniquets and compressed hemorrhage presented with higher mean systolic (p = 0.003) and diastolic (p = 0.023) blood pressures than the group with no tourniquets or ineffective ones. Complications included one peroneal nerve palsy and no amputations resulted from tourniquet application.ConclusionField tourniquets applied for penetrating injuries with severe bleeding can significantly reduce transfusion requirements and help maintain adequate blood pressure. Tourniquets were no