Honestly, they were talking out of their behinds. Tourniquets have certainly not been regularly used for up to 24 hours in Afghanistan, especially as the average medevac time was just over an hour when I was there.Tackleberry wrote:We questioned it as well, but we're told that in the Afghan combat torniquets have been regularly used and kept on for upto 24 hours. My own personal thought would be to torniquet for a catastrophic bleed, but to release it every hour for a short period.
There is a huge difference between military and civilian views on torniquets, I would hope that the powers that be can standardise the issue, especially as you can pick up a CAT for less than £20
You use a tourniquet until you can get a suitable pressure dressing on, it's not a long term solution and really will kill off tissue and muscle if left on too long.
There is no difference between the military and civilian view of tourniquet use, it's simple medical fact. Soldier's bodies aren't any different to civilians. You use them as an absolute last choice and for as short a time as possible. (Tourniquets, not soldier's bodies).
Yes of course it's better to tourniquet for 24 hours than bleed out if that's all you have, on the understanding that you'll almost certainly lose the leg but survive. You'd have to be in a situation where you couldn't stop and dress the wound properly though with a pressure dressing to have to leave the CAT on.
That isn't a situation that I'm aware had ever happened in Afghanistan.
I'm an ex-RAMC doctor by the way, so I'd like to think it's a subject I know a bit about!