Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:00:28.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Skin Damage from Accidental Removal of a Hemostatic Wound Clamp (The iTClamp)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2017

Jessica L. Mckee ,
Prasanna Lakshminarasimhan ,
Ian Atkinson ,
Anthony J. LaPorta  and
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick
Jessica L. Mckee*
Affiliation:
Innovative Trauma Care, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Prasanna Lakshminarasimhan
Affiliation:
Innovative Trauma Care, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Ian Atkinson
Affiliation:
Innovative Trauma Care, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Anthony J. LaPorta
Affiliation:
Professor of Surgery and Military Medicine, Rocky Vista School of Medicine, Parker, ColoradoUSA
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick
Affiliation:
Regional Trauma Services and the Departments of Surgery, Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Canadian Forces Health Services, Canada Alberta Health Services, Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
*
Correspondence: Jessica Mckee, BA, MSc Director, Clinical Alberta Innovates R&D Industry Associate Innovative Trauma Care Suite 343, 6556-28 Ave NW Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6L 6N3 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Controlling bleeding early in the prehospital and military setting is an extremely important and life-saving skill. Wound clamping is a newly introduced technique that may augment both the effectiveness and logistics of wound packing with any gauze product. As these devices may be inadvertently removed, the potential consequences of such were examined in a simulated, extreme, inadvertent disengagement.

Methods

The wound clamp used was an iTClamp (Innovative Trauma Care; Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) that was applied and forcefully removed (skin-pull) from the skin of both a human cadaver and swine. Sixty skin-pull tests were sequentially performed to measure the pull weight required to remove the device, any potential skin and device damage, how the device failed, and if the device could be re-applied.

Results

Observations of the skin revealed that other than the expected eight small needle holes from device application, no other damage to the skin was sustained in 98.3% of cases. Conversely, of the 60 devices pulled, 93.3% of the devices sustained no damage and all could be re-applied. Four (6.7%) of the devices remained in place despite a maximum pull weight >22lbF (pound-force). The mean pull weights for pin bar pull were (lbF): vertical 9.2 (SD=5.0); perpendicular 2.5 (SD=1.7); and parallel 5.3 (SD=3.1). For the encompassed pull position group, mean pull weights were (lbF): vertical 5.7 (SD=2.3); perpendicular 3.0 (SD=2.5); and parallel 14.5 (SD=3.5). The overall mean for all groups was 6.7 (SD=5.2). The two main reasons that the iTClamp was pulled off were because the friction lock let go or the needles slipped out of one side of the skin due to the angle of the pull.

Conclusion

Inadvertent, forcible removal of the iTClamp created essentially no skin damage seen when the wound clamp was forcibly removed from either cadaver or swine models in a variety of positions and directions. Thus, the risks of deployment in operational environments do not seem to be increased.

MckeeJL, LakshminarasimhanP, AtkinsonI, LaPortaAJ, KirkpatrickAW. Evaluation of Skin Damage from Accidental Removal of a Hemostatic Wound Clamp (The iTClamp). Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(6):651–656.

Keywords

hemorrhage controliTClampskin damage
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 32 , Issue 6 , December 2017 , pp. 651 - 656
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest/funding/disclaimer: Jessica Mckee is the Clinical Director of Innovative Trauma Care (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada), the company that funded this study and manufactures and distributes the iTClamp, one of the devices tested in this study. Jessica Mckee has had her travel covered by Innovative Trauma Care as part of her position with the company and is entitled to stock options. Prasanna Lakshminarasimhan was the technical engineer of Innovative Trauma Care. Ian Atkinson is the Chief Technical Officer of Innovative Trauma Care. Ian Atkinson also sits on the board for Innovative Trauma Care, is entitled to stock options, and is on several patents with the company. Innovative Trauma Care has also covered Ian Atkinson’s travel when it is related to his employment with the company. Major Andrew W. Kirkpatrick has been paid a consulting fee and travel compensation from Innovative Trauma Care. Andrew Kirkpatrick has also consulted for Acelity (San Antonio, Texas USA) and Cook Medical (Bloomington, Indiana USA); Cook Medical has also paid for his travel on other projects. Dr. Anthony LaPorta declares that he has no conflict of interest. This study was funded by Innovative Trauma Care. There is no grant or funding number. The opinions expressed are solely the opinions of the authors and do not represent any official positions or policies of any agencies or departments of the Governments of Canada or the United States of America.

References

1. Champion, HR. Epidemiological basis for future improvements in trauma care. Seminars in Hematology. 2004;41(Suppl 1):173.Google Scholar
2. Eastridge, BJ, Mabry, RL, Seguin, P, et al. Death on the battlefield (2001-2011): implications for the future of combat casualty care. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73(6 Suppl 5):S431-S437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Stussman, BJ. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1994 emergency department summary. Adv Data. 1996;275:1-20.Google Scholar
4. Grissom, TE, Fang, R. Topical hemostatic agents and dressings in the prehospital setting. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2015;28(2):210-216.Google Scholar
5. Kragh, JF, Lunati, MP, Kharod, CU, et al. Assessment of groin application of junctional tourniquets in a manikin model. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(4):358-363.Google Scholar
6. Bulger, EM, Snyder, D, Schoelles, K, et al. An evidence-based prehospital guideline for external hemorrhage control: American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014;18(2):163-173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Butler, FK Jr., Holcomb, JB, Giebner, SD, McSwain, NE, Bagian, J. Tactical combat casualty care 2007: evolving concepts and battlefield experience. Mil Med. 2007;172(11 Suppl):1-19.Google Scholar
8. Kheirabadi, B. Evaluation of topical hemostatic agents for combat wound treatment. US Army Med Dep J. 2011: 25-37.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Filips, D, Logsetty, S, Tan, J, Atkinson, I, Mottet, K. The iTClamp controls junctional bleeding in a lethal swine exsanguination model. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2013;17(4):526-532.Google Scholar
10. Mottet, K, Filips, D, Logsetty, S, Atkinson, I. Evaluation of the iTClamp 50 in a human cadaver model of severe compressible bleeding. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;76(3):791-797.Google Scholar
11. Thompson, L. Application of the iTClamp in the management of hemorrhage: a case study. Journal of Paramedic Practice. 2014;6(5):180-181.Google Scholar
12. Hudson, A GW. First UK use of the iTClamp hemorrhage control system: case report. Trauma. 2014;16(3):214-216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. St John, AE, Wang, X, Lim, EB, Chien, D, Stern, SA, White, NJ. Effects of rapid wound sealing on survival and blood loss in a swine model of lethal junctional arterial hemorrhage. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;79(2):256-262.Google Scholar
14. Bennett, BL, Littlejohn, L. Review of new topical hemostatic dressings for combat casualty care. Mil Med. 2014;179(5):497-514.Google Scholar
15. Littlejohn, LF, Devlin, JJ, Kircher, SS, Lueken, R, Melia, MR, Johnson, AS. Comparison of Celox-A, ChitoFlex, WoundStat, and combat gauze hemostatic agents versus standard gauze dressing in control of hemorrhage in a swine model of penetrating trauma. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(4):340-350.Google Scholar
16. Barnung, S, Steinmetz, J. A prehospital use of ITClamp for hemostatic control and fixation of a chest tube. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014;58(2):251-253.Google Scholar
17. Beckett, A, Savage, E, Pannell, D, Acharya, S, Kirkpatrick, A, Tien, HC. Needle decompression for tension pneumothorax in Tactical Combat Casualty Care: do catheters placed in the midaxillary line kink more often than those in the midclavicular line? J Trauma. 2011;71(5 Suppl 1):S408-S412.Google Scholar
18. Grange, JT, Corbett, SW. Violence against emergency medical services personnel. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2002;6(2):186-190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Corbett, SW, Grange, JT, Thomas, TL. Exposure of prehospital care providers to violence. Prehosp Emerg Care. 1998;2(2):127-131.Google Scholar
20. Pozzi, C. Exposure of prehospital providers to violence and abuse. J Emerg Nurs. 1998;24(4):320-323.Google Scholar
21. Currier, GW. Atypical antipsychotic medications in the psychiatric emergency service. J Clin Psychiatry. 2000;61(Suppl 14):21-26.Google Scholar
22. Baker, SN. Management of acute agitation in the emergency department. Adv Emerg Nurs J. 2012;34(4):306-318; quiz 319-320.Google Scholar
23. Weiss, S, Peterson, K, Cheney, P, Froman, P, Ernst, A, Campbell, M. The use of chemical restraints reduces agitation in patients transported by emergency medical services. J Emerg Med. 2012;43(5):820-828.Google Scholar
24. LaPorta, A KA, Mckee, J, Roberts, D, et al. Randomized control trial comparing marksmanship following application of a tourniquet or hemostatic clamp in healthy volunteers. Royal Army Medical Corps. In Press.Google Scholar