A buddy sent me this and I thought it was pretty damned slick. Apparently only available with a prescription right now(?).
https://www.innovativetraumacare.com/
https://www.innovativetraumacare.com/
For the docs out there...
- Thread starter MarinePMI
- Start date
^^ I'll play.
As a surgeon, I find it gimmicky at best.
Here's a short list.
The application of the device is reliant on closure of overlying skin sufficiently tight to "seal" visual ongoing bleeding with the hope that bleeding pressure is overcome in effect causing a hydraulic tamponade e.g. contained hematoma.
It would not be appropriate / applicable to most conscious pediatric patients.
The device cost is $110-125 each, to close a 5 cm laceration.
The shape of the device is awkward as mentioned in their case studies when attempting to apply more than one device in tandem for longer lacerations.
A simple 3M surgical stapler, e.g. AKA "the cricket", with 5 staples each cost $10. Staples applied 1 cm apart would close a 7 cm laceration without any of the device bulkiness and can apply closure more effectively in areas of tight skin closures e.g. hand, curvatures of the shoulder etc. FYI- pretty handy to have in your outback first aid kit, even if you do know how to suture wounds.
The device has 4 opposing "pins" about a cm apart that pierce the skin and are very short, limiting the depth of tissue to effect compression, one of its design goals. Limitations of application where skin normally taut e.g. palm of hand (speaking of which the brochure repeatedly incorrectly spells one of the arteries of the hand as the "palmer" artery, as though named by a golf legend. It's palmar artery). Tight back skin is another example.
The device also relies on the laceration being somewhat longer than the device itself, as the ends of a shorter laceration would "bunch" up and prevent closure of the device in its center to effectively bring the wound margins together. I guess you could always lengthen the laceration to apply the device, ask the patient first.
Many of the injury examples cited in the promotional information involve superficial lacerations (extremities) that could be managed by simple elevation of the injury above the heart and direct compression / temporary circumferential compression.
Most gunshot wound entrance / exits do not bleed much if no underlying vessel is injured. In their above example, despite no bleeding illogically the device was still applied.
He reported hearing a single gunshot, and that he was only shot one time. On examination, EMS noted that the patient had one small caliper gunshot wound to the left upper thigh with an exit wound to the left middle thigh, with both injury sites not bleeding. This patient was fully immobilized and placed on a cot. Once fully examined the patient was found to have normal vitals, was given O2 and two large bore IV’s were placed. iTClamp was then applied to the patient’s exit wound with a 2X2 gauze applied to the entrance wound.
The premise that by approximating skin laceration margins, then one further relies on uncontrolled deeper bleeding to create an underlying hematoma that is critical aspect of the device effectiveness, is abject heresy for traumatic wound care.
The cricket stapler.
As a surgeon, I find it gimmicky at best.
Here's a short list.
The application of the device is reliant on closure of overlying skin sufficiently tight to "seal" visual ongoing bleeding with the hope that bleeding pressure is overcome in effect causing a hydraulic tamponade e.g. contained hematoma.
It would not be appropriate / applicable to most conscious pediatric patients.
The device cost is $110-125 each, to close a 5 cm laceration.
The shape of the device is awkward as mentioned in their case studies when attempting to apply more than one device in tandem for longer lacerations.
A simple 3M surgical stapler, e.g. AKA "the cricket", with 5 staples each cost $10. Staples applied 1 cm apart would close a 7 cm laceration without any of the device bulkiness and can apply closure more effectively in areas of tight skin closures e.g. hand, curvatures of the shoulder etc. FYI- pretty handy to have in your outback first aid kit, even if you do know how to suture wounds.
The device has 4 opposing "pins" about a cm apart that pierce the skin and are very short, limiting the depth of tissue to effect compression, one of its design goals. Limitations of application where skin normally taut e.g. palm of hand (speaking of which the brochure repeatedly incorrectly spells one of the arteries of the hand as the "palmer" artery, as though named by a golf legend. It's palmar artery). Tight back skin is another example.
The device also relies on the laceration being somewhat longer than the device itself, as the ends of a shorter laceration would "bunch" up and prevent closure of the device in its center to effectively bring the wound margins together. I guess you could always lengthen the laceration to apply the device, ask the patient first.
Many of the injury examples cited in the promotional information involve superficial lacerations (extremities) that could be managed by simple elevation of the injury above the heart and direct compression / temporary circumferential compression.
Most gunshot wound entrance / exits do not bleed much if no underlying vessel is injured. In their above example, despite no bleeding illogically the device was still applied.
He reported hearing a single gunshot, and that he was only shot one time. On examination, EMS noted that the patient had one small caliper gunshot wound to the left upper thigh with an exit wound to the left middle thigh, with both injury sites not bleeding. This patient was fully immobilized and placed on a cot. Once fully examined the patient was found to have normal vitals, was given O2 and two large bore IV’s were placed. iTClamp was then applied to the patient’s exit wound with a 2X2 gauze applied to the entrance wound.
The premise that by approximating skin laceration margins, then one further relies on uncontrolled deeper bleeding to create an underlying hematoma that is critical aspect of the device effectiveness, is abject heresy for traumatic wound care.
The cricket stapler.
Interesting insight. I figured somebody would have some perspective here on the Hide. Thanks for the input!
I agree. Sutures or a staple gun. Ligation of vessels if it's appropriate & you can. Tournequets are cool too. 
