Originally Posted by
Flatline
I bring unbiased experience. People can say that they don't care what the surgeon thinks if they get there alive, but if 80% of your patients die on the table instead of 25% due to the increased time taken in surgery (pulling out 92 pellets is going to take a long time, and if you have to explore or take xrays because you don't really know how many pellets there are it will take even longer), but you only increase the number of causalities that make it to the OR by 10% is it worth it (obviously these stats are made up, but without studies nobody will know what they really are)? Pressure dressings or other traditional methods not only stop blood from exiting the body, but will prevent third spacing of the blood into organ cavities, can this product work as well or does it only stop blood from exiting the wound tract? I have seen many triple As die from hemorrhagic shock with all of the blood being third spaced in the peritoneal cavity.
People want to jump on a bandwagon because something is new and exciting. This could potentially be a good product, but it could also be crap. I would love for this to be great, but for the reasons above I have my doubts. All medical professionals should recognize this, and not advocate for something until there is efficacy (as proven by multiple third party studies). I see the same thing in the fire service, some company will try to peddle their new product without any proof that it works any better than what we already have. They usually have some flashy video of them putting out a mobile home fire is 30 seconds on their website, but struggle to show it works any better when we ask them to do it at our station. The company is there to make money.
I would love a tool that can increase survivability be it this product or any other, but there needs to be proof.
Why are you so defensive when someone has doubts about an unproven product?
Reply With Quote
