Cam Hanes At Home Stitches

[Brock A]

Mike, why don't you pack the quickclot? Pros & cons? I carry it that's why I am asking.

Brock

 

[Rocky]

I had the same question

 

[Mike7]

I don't bring the quick clot for a couple of reasons whether right or wrong...maybe someone can convince me otherwise.
First, when putting together my medical kit, I look at what the likely injuries or ailments that I may encounter are, and that I can actually do something about them in the backcountry. And then second, I look at the weight of items and the possibility for multiple uses. Tape and 4x4 gauze dressings have multiple uses, while the only purpose I can see for a clotting agent is treatment on a deep large arterial wound (i.e. below the body's fat layer). It is really quite easy to stop bleeding from small arteries or large veins which are present down to the surface of the muscular layers...in fact, typically they will almost stop on their own after a time.

Also, I can scarcely think of a time that I've run into a (non-battlefield) situation where bleeding couldn't ultimately be controlled with pressure and wound approximation alone (on normal people not on anticoagulants). I will throw in this caveat, however; my experience with Quick Clot type products on living bleeding tissues was with older products, including the original "loose" Quick Clot granules. These older products, and I suspect the newer products also, do require some training on proper use, as they not the easiest to effectively use (apparently the new ones are less messy and cause less thermal injury though). Generally the older products required you to stop the bleeding and expose the offending arteries in order for the agent to work.

It would be interesting to see if there are some Corpsmen or Medics on here who have used the newer products in battle and in what specific instances they might have actually been needed or beneficial. I suspect you are going to be looking mostly at certain IED injuries.

 

[Rocky]

I don't bring the quick clot for a couple of reasons whether right or wrong...maybe someone can convince me otherwise.
First, when putting together my medical kit, I look at what the likely injuries or ailments that I may encounter are, and that I can actually do something about them in the backcountry. And then second, I look at the weight of items and the possibility for multiple uses. Tape and 4x4 gauze dressings have multiple uses, while the only purpose I can see for a clotting agent is treatment on a deep large arterial wound (i.e. below the body's fat layer). It is really quite easy to stop bleeding from small arteries or large veins which are present down to the surface of the muscular layers...in fact, typically they will almost stop on their own after a time.

Also, I can scarcely think of a time that I've run into a (non-battlefield) situation where bleeding couldn't ultimately be controlled with pressure and wound approximation alone (on normal people not on anticoagulants). I will throw in this caveat, however; my experience with Quick Clot type products on living bleeding tissues was with older products, including the original "loose" Quick Clot granules. These older products, and I suspect the newer products also, do require some training on proper use, as they not the easiest to effectively use (apparently the new ones are less messy and cause less thermal injury though). Generally the older products required you to stop the bleeding and expose the offending arteries in order for the agent to work.

It would be interesting to see if there are some Corpsmen or Medics on here who have used the newer products in battle and in what specific instances they might have actually been needed or beneficial. I suspect you are going to be looking mostly at certain IED injuries.

Thanks for the information Mike.

 

[Ryan Avery]

It was a high ass crack removal I might add. It did prove very difficult to remove with Aron running around screaming!

 

[Mike7]

Quite funny. Between having you and Littlebuf as friends, I'm not sure Aron needs any enemies.

 

[Brock A]

I don't bring the quick clot for a couple of reasons whether right or wrong...maybe someone can convince me otherwise.
First, when putting together my medical kit, I look at what the likely injuries or ailments that I may encounter are, and that I can actually do something about them in the backcountry. And then second, I look at the weight of items and the possibility for multiple uses. Tape and 4x4 gauze dressings have multiple uses, while the only purpose I can see for a clotting agent is treatment on a deep large arterial wound (i.e. below the body's fat layer). It is really quite easy to stop bleeding from small arteries or large veins which are present down to the surface of the muscular layers...in fact, typically they will almost stop on their own after a time.

Also, I can scarcely think of a time that I've run into a (non-battlefield) situation where bleeding couldn't ultimately be controlled with pressure and wound approximation alone (on normal people not on anticoagulants). I will throw in this caveat, however; my experience with Quick Clot type products on living bleeding tissues was with older products, including the original "loose" Quick Clot granules. These older products, and I suspect the newer products also, do require some training on proper use, as they not the easiest to effectively use (apparently the new ones are less messy and cause less thermal injury though). Generally the older products required you to stop the bleeding and expose the offending arteries in order for the agent to work.

It would be interesting to see if there are some Corpsmen or Medics on here who have used the newer products in battle and in what specific instances they might have actually been needed or beneficial. I suspect you are going to be looking mostly at certain IED injuries.

Yep, thanks for that!

 

[Jason Snyder]

The newer clotting agents do not cause the burning reaction that the older ones do. The newer stuff often comes impregnated into a gauze bandage and is packed down into the wound channel with a lot of pressure. It is a painful process and not one that you could likely do on your own in a manner that it would be effective. This stuff is for large wounds where there is a lot of bleeding from multiple sources, i.e. a gunshot to the leg and you have veins and arteries damaged.

Current combat first aid teaches that if you have arterial bleeding, go directly to a tourniquet and don't screw with the quick clot agents. If you have a wound that is not exhibiting arterial bleeding, but you can't get the bleeding stopped, pack it with the impregnated gauze rolls.

And yes, Mike7, when I mentioned CPR I meant from the standpoint of a lightning strike or some other form of uncosciousness where the person wasn't breathing. I fully agree a dude having a heart attack in the backcountry is pretty much SOL.

Thank you very much for sharing your expertise.

 

[Jager]

Thanks very much Mike and Jason for the good info.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

who the heck is Cameron Hanes? someone might suggest he use superglue for epidermal paper cuts, because stitches are for actual deep tissue wounds.

just my thoughts.

 

[quarbles]

even with stitches wouldn't that just pop open immediately as soon as someone attempted running?

 

[unm1136]

No, I said TICK!

The big blue suited super hero?



pat