Blood Vessel Shunt May Save Limbs In War 157
The FDA has just approved for military use a shunt that allows partially-severed limbs to continue to get circulation. The FDA approved the device in a fast-track process lasting only a week. The article notes: "For most, it won't be a matter of saving a limb outright but rather salvaging the quality of a wounded leg or arm... The shunt may save injured limbs from amputation, since it can be implanted on the battlefield to maintain blood flow until a wounded soldier undergoes surgery, FDA officials said. Since the start of the Iraq war, more than 500 soldiers have lost limbs, many to injuries suffered in roadside bombings."
Re:Only 500? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Only 500? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not to argue semantics... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Only 500? (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think you are quite getting that right. We are seeing an increase in the PERCENTAGE in the number of limbs amputated, from 1.4% for most of the 20th century to 2.4% in Iraq. The trade off isn't literal, there is a significant decrease in limb, as there is in overall mortality. New trauma care methods and new technology changed the divisions of the pie, but they made it much smaller too.
But there is no huge increase in limb loss.
Re:Only 500? (Score:2, Informative)
Why do you assume the standards are not objective? (Score:3, Informative)
The military is willing to accept medical devices that have been fast tracked. The civilian market is not - even if the FDA 'fast-tracked' something for the civilian market, nobody would likely use it because they wouldn't want to face the liability for using a device that hadn't gone through the 'real' testing.
You're also missing that the military environment is different. In Iraq, potential amputation injuries are frequent, and distance to proper care can be far. In the US, the usefulness of this device would be limited, as by the time someone who happened to have one of these devices got to you and it put in, you'd already be at the major trauma center anyway.
Re:Only 500? (Score:4, Informative)
Way more than 500 (Score:4, Informative)
That number is waaay lowballing the actual number.
Re:Only 500? (Score:2, Informative)
While I did military service (in little Sweden), for instance, we quickly learnt that the reason that a 7.62 machine-gun bullet did less damage than a 5.56 assault rifle bullet was that the 7.62 bullet passed cleanly through the tissue. (in the case that it didn't hit anything major, of course.) Having higher weight but about the same speed means that it doesn't slow down as quickly, so it "just" goes in, and then out again leaving a small outgoing wound. While, on the other hand, a 5.56 bullet would start to tumble around inside whatever it hit, leaving a _much_ bigger outgoing wound.