U.S. Military Developing Ultrasonic Tourniquet 121
Burlap writes to tell us the MIT Technology Review is reporting on a new DARPA venture to create an "ultrasonic tourniquet" to help stem bleeding on injuries sustained in battle. The project plans to commit $51 million over the course of 4 years. From the article: "[I]t aims to create a cuff-like device that wraps around a wounded limb. Rather than applying pressure to the wound to stem the flow of blood, the device would use focused beams of ultrasound (sound waves above the audible frequencies) to non-invasively clot vessels no matter how deep they are."
Another great new weapon (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe this could also be a weapon whose end result would be indistinguishable from death by "natural causes".
I guess its appropriate the military came up with this.
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
I think it's as stupid idea - because you do want some blood flow if you do want to save the limb.
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:5, Insightful)
On saving limbs (Score:3, Interesting)
The thinking regarding tourniquets among the U.S. military in Iraq is that they have such a rapid response in getting a wounded soldier to a hospital that they are handing out tourniquets to the ranks. The belief is that most wounded will get to surgery fast enough that the effect of the tourniquet is not a factor in deciding to save the limb
Re:On saving limbs (Score:2)
Re:On saving limbs (Score:1)
QuikClot (Score:2)
Testing this on pigs, they cut the pigs' femoral arteries and let 'em bleed for 3 min. IIRC.
No therapy - 80% mortality.
Best competing products - 60% mortality.
QuikClot - 0% mortality.
Re:QuikClot (Score:2)
So they had a nice, clean cut instead of a mangled mess where you probably cannot find the artery.
Also, I'd like to see this power applied to an internal injury.
Re:QuikClot (Score:2)
QuikClot is now available on a "sponge" which will stay in the wound despite massive blood flow. Using this stuff does not require finding the exact source of the bleeding, and it can be used on internal inuries in virtually any area of the body.
Re:QuikClot (Score:2)
However, I think you need to be able to _access_ it. Internal injuries are, well, internal and do not necessarily bleed outside the body. To use this stuff, you will have to cut a hole into the patient first, and of course know where and how to cut.
Re:QuikClot (Score:2)
Re:On saving limbs (Score:2)
There wa
Re:On saving limbs (Score:1)
I never suggested that tourniquets weren't appropriate. You made the claim:
"The thinking regarding tourniquets among the U.S. military in Iraq is that they have such a rapid response in getting a wounded soldier to
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, but no. It would make a very unpractical weapon, if anything.
Consider this: You have to apply the thing to a person's skin, since ultrasound transmission from air to tissue is extremely poor. If you are close enough to apply stuff to someone's skin, there's a myriad of other, much simpler ways of killing the person. Some are even indistinguishable from death by natural causes, and this me
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
The process may need contact now, but rest assured accoustic technology would allow with wave mixing this process to be applied without contact. The process of wave mixing and spread spectrum allows low frequency carriers to carry higher frequencies. Also shock waves with infinite harmonics do the exact same thing (AKA explosions) so the technology will get perfected.
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
That still doesn't do anything about the huge acoustic impedance difference between air and tissue. The victim would end up with burns on his skin rather than blood clots inside his body.
Also shock waves with infinite harmonics do the exact same thing (AKA explosions) so the technology will get perfected.
Shock waves are too brief to do any meaningful heating to tissue. They'll rip off your arm if
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:5, Funny)
At which point, you will need some sort of tourniquet. I hear they are coming out with a "Sonic Tourniquet" that may fit the bill.
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:3, Informative)
Is this a real term? Are audio mathematicians on acid, or is there a rational explanation for the term?
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:1)
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, this makes such a good weapon for combat. I have to run up to you, slather you with ultrasonic conducting gel, ram a probe against your skin, find a major artery, and then hit it with ultrasound.
And you are going to be standing there, like a dummy, holding your rifle with a stupid, slack-jawed look on your face, and let me do it.
READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE. THIS DOES NOT WORK AT A DISTANCE.
Moreover, the results of ultrasonic cautery are TRIVIALLY identifiable by any medical examiner.
Get over your "The military is doing this - they must want to use it to KILL PEOPLE." - the military also wants to save the lives of its own people, jackass. Most of modern trauma medicine - you know, all the procedures, equipment, and drugs they will use to save your sorry ass when you wrap it around a tree because your cellphone was more important than driving was - were developed by, GUESS WHAT - THE MILITARY.
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:1)
Of course, they never get the chance to check the headrest of his seat, his bed, or the floor by his feet as they are all carefully removed upon the emergency landing in Indonesia.
Not all weapons are d
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you not read where I said, "Ultrasonic cautery is trivially identifiable by any medical examiner".
Now, since you've demonstrated that you have a problem actually READING WORDS let's see if I can help you understand how this applies.
Ahmadinejad dies on the plane. His people scream for a autopsy. The ME takes one look at his brain, and says "SHIT - somebody used an ultrasonic cautery on this man. This wasn't natural causes - THIS WAS MURDER."
Now, if you are going to say "duuuuuh - yeah, but, duuuh, they will silence the ME, duuuuh.", then I will point out that if they can silence the ME, then killing Ahmadinejad with a small amount of poison in his food, or with a quick needle stick of poison is FAR EASIER than putting shit in his seat, FAR EASIER to cover up, and equally "undetectable" as the ultrasonic cautery.
Now, stop and READ what I wrote. Then THINK IT THROUGH. I know it hurts - but the more you actually USE your brain for something other than keeping your skull from imploding, the less it will hurt.
Oh, and for the stupid among the moderators (obviously not YOU - YOU aren't stupid, it's some of those OTHER mods that are stupid) - I am being rather nasty to this cretin because that is the ONLY way this jackass will learn to actually READ what he is responding to. But go ahead - do what you think, or rather FEEL, is best - I've long ago given up on the moderation system as producing meaningful results.
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:1)
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
"Boo hoo, nobody reads my posts. Boo hoo, moderators are out to get me. Boo hoo, this thing isn't a weapon."
If life's so hard, get off the Internet. Go sit in your room in fetal position, day after day, until you run out of food and water and die. And after you die, don't bitch to God about it, he doesn't want to hear it.
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
You are largely correct. The Department of Transportation protocols for EMTs were formed after the success of MASH units and field medics in the Korean War. As far as car accidents are concernec, I have worse news for the elite "I hate the military" types: most vehicle extrication practices come from NASCAR.
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:1)
The military-haters are practically a superset of the nascar-haters.
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:1)
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/research
Yes - ultrasound at a distance (specifically refer to the thermoelastic regime).
By the way, is there are particular reason your response is so obnoxious or does your assumption of total superiority imbue with a compulsion to act like a complete knob.
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
Yeah, riiiight.
If you manage to create enough ultrasound energy this way to clot blood, you've probably burnt a hole into the victim with the laser already. Also, the technology requires focused ultrasound, i.e. you need a way to direct the ultrasound beams. The laser things most definitely doesn't do that.
It doesn't work at a distance. Period.
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:5, Funny)
"Excuse me Mr. Abadulakazam, could you please lean forward?"
"Why?"
"Well sir, I want to kill."
"Oh, well in that case here you go."
"Thank you, just let me clamp this around your neck and turn it on."
"Ok."
"Whatever you do, don't remove it. It will take a while to actually kill you, so by removing it you would save your life incredibly easily."
"I'm not one to insult the American government (other than blowing it up) but this seems like a pretty bad weapon."
"Well, DoD heard good things about it from this guy who calls himself Black Sabbeth, so they decided to try it."
"Oh, I see."
"Dead yet?"
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
"Oh no! I'm bleeding so badly I need to sacrifice this arm by using a tourniquet to stop the blood flow, or I'm going to die!"
"Don't worry, I've got this sonic tourniquet!"
"Oh, great!"
"Well, you're going to be dead long before this happens, but it's going to make all t
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this post is designed to constitute medical advice, as the author is not a physician. If faced
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:1)
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:1)
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
And you're going to apply fire to an internal injury how ?
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:1)
Re:Another great new weapon (Score:2)
potassium chloride.
Its the euthanasia injection of choice by those who don't want to get caught. Give them a couple of ativan to get them "out of it", then inject them with KCl.
Worst. Idea. EVER. (Score:3, Insightful)
You can expect the statistics of soldiers having strokes for no apparent reason to go WAY up.
Re:Worst. Idea. EVER. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but the question is will the amount of strokes go up more than the amount of soldiers dying from internal bleeding goes down. Since the article makes it sound like the bleeding is stopped by using heat (hot poker?) rather than making something like sonically concocted platelette crystal thingies (which I thought of when I read the title), strokes may not be such a huge risk. Besides, given the choice of a possibly recoverable stroke or heart attack versus guaranteed bleeding to death, I think most would roll the dice.
Still, soldiers should make sure their post-mortem wills include living will instructions (and check how thier insurance covers it). All of that can be done for free with their military legal offices.
Re:Worst. Idea. EVER. (Score:2)
So, would you rather take a chance at having a blood clot go into one of your vital organs, or bleed to death in the next three minutes ? Take your pick, but don't take your time.
Re:Worst. Idea. EVER. (Score:1)
Sure there are many serious risks involved with creating blood clots. Small clots are forced though your blood stream... not directly to the brain or heart, etc.
A clot can become lodged in an artery near soldiers foot, resulting in no bloodflow to - and subsequent loss of - t
Re:Worst. Idea. EVER. (Score:1)
Re:Worst. Idea. EVER. (Score:1)
More uses? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More uses? (Score:1)
It's being investigated. (Score:2, Informative)
YET More uses! (Score:1)
Maybe they could invest in a device that unshoots a gun victim using the same technique? If they could say stop a ruptured internal organs before shock kicks in somehow.
Re:More uses? (Score:2)
think of the uses! (Score:4, Funny)
in other news, the CIA has a large number of "enemy combatants" that have died unexpectedly from stroke...
Re:think of the uses! (Score:2)
"In other news today, terrorist prisoners killed themselves by slipping on a bar of soap 49 times. This obvious attempt to discredit the state shall not be rewarded with a funeral, according to officials. The body was dumped into the river following a through medical examination that showed the prisoners were clearly evil due to brain imbalances. God bless our nation."
Missing? (Score:1)
Filter Stents (Score:1)
Reversible? (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted, my only medical experience is treating badly banged up Boy Scouts, but I can see two issues with this thing:
1) How reversible is it? I mean, once the wounded person gets to advanced medical care in a hospital or the battlefield equivalent, how easy is it to remove the clots? I know this (thryombolysis) can be quite tricky for hospitals to pull off as it is in cases like heart attacks and pulmonary embolisms.
2) What about partially formed clots? I can only imagine the damage caused by huge amounts of partially formed clots floating around in the body wreaking havoc.
Granted, if the person would clearly die without the treatment anyway, then those points are void. But surely this has more side effects than tying a piece of cloth around a limb and cinching really tightly.
At any rate, those seem like some pretty clever engineers and scientists at work, and I certainly hope this device works as well as they hope it does.
Re:Reversible? (Score:2, Informative)
Clots usually require a solvent to brake them down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platelets [wikipedia.org]. There are chemical reactions which take place and don't tend to be easily reversible, otherwise nature would re-use platlets rather than re-absorbing them.
Re:Reversible? (Score:2)
A person only has a limited amount of clotting factors in their body at any one time. If you consume it in one area doing one job, it is not available to do the job elsewhere. This isn't a big inventory and does not replace fast. In any case clotting deliberately may have value but it has a cost.
Re:Reversible? (Score:2)
Re:Reversible? (Score:1)
In related news... (Score:4, Funny)
Think "wounds, sustained in battle" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Think "wounds, sustained in battle" (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Think "wounds, sustained in battle" (Score:1)
Ah, that's why Spock's toilet door has 'VIP' on it - Vulcan Is Pooing.
No blood flow... (Score:1)
Sounds like a good recipe for gangrene.
Re:No blood flow... (Score:1)
Re:No blood flow... (Score:1)
Re:No blood flow... (Score:1)
What's not explained, though, is how you get rid of these clots afterwards...
---John Holmes...
Re:No blood flow... (Score:2)
Re:No blood flow... (Score:1)
---John Holmes...
Dune-inspired? (Score:1)
Guess I wasn't that far from the truth...
Re:Dune-inspired? (Score:2)
Old News (Score:3, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5106598.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Bottom line -- cost... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bottom line -- cost... (Score:2)
You're not seeing the big pictre. Just like with NASA's programs, devices and techniques like this, developed for their most aggessive and necessary settings, can still have broad use in
Re:Bottom line -- cost... (Score:2)
Ok, so you save X amount of lives today for that money, when 2X lives could
Re:Bottom line -- cost... (Score:2)
Re:Bottom line -- cost... (Score:2)
Re:Bottom line -- cost... (Score:1)
Does it come with a warning label? (Score:1)
Re:Does it come with a warning label? (Score:2)
"Happy fun neck massager!: Place on neck for good-timey massage!"
I read the titls as... (Score:1)
I am now somewhat disapointed with the subject matter.
What the article does not say: (Score:1)
Re:What the article does not say: (Score:2)
Detectability? (Score:1)
Imagine: Enemy combatants walking through town with a handheld device, till they see a huge cluster behind the wall of a building, just like Hudson's motion tracker in Aliens. This tourniquet could make the wounded into quite noticeable targets.
What
Re:Detectability? (Score:2)
You haven't seen it because it's an absolute non-issue.
Surely they give off quite a bit of energy, and even if only very short range, a decent scanner with a scalable depth setting could conceivably locate it.
In almost any event, it is much, much more simple just to search for the person the thing is attached to. Unless you have lost one that is not attached to a person. Also, the ultrasound is directed i
Knowing the government ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Reported uses for the device (Score:2, Funny)
Scam? (Score:1)
No, this sounds like bullshit pseudoscience to me, in the same vein as ions, magnets, and energy auras.
No scam. (Score:2)
In that case you need to get a clue.
Ultrasound doesn't magically cause clotting. Ultrasound causes heating. With most diagnostic devices, this effect is pretty much negligible and/or needs to be kept below a certain threshold according to (insert local medical device agency, for example FDA) regulations.
However, if you direct several strong ultrasound sources at a certain volume of tissue (hence "fo
Ultrasound (Score:1)
Ken Lay? (Score:1)
Does this even make sense? (Score:1)
can they really get these things to generate enough heat that quickly? wouldn't it be easier to just keep a nice chunk of titanium/copper etc and a way to superheat it? I mean, yeah it's basically civil war technology, but i don't really see how this is going to be cheaper, faster, or more reliable.
please let me know if my logic is screwy.
RTFA carefully (Score:2)
Tourniquet was a poorly chosen word. The device DOES wrap around, but it does NOT automatically clot all blood in the general area. It provides a combination of ultrasonic imaging so that qualified medical personel can locate severe bleeding, and stronger ultrasonic cautery so that said personel can then target specific trouble spots. The cautery itself doesn't simply close off the artery in question, it causes clotting over the injury to the artery while bloodflow hopefully continues through it.
The clott
Re:Misleading name (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, but whoever told you that should get some medical training first.
A regular turniquet is reversible for a while (that's why you should note the time at which the tourniquet was applied). Your extremities can survive without blood flow much longer than your brain can.
Re:Misleading name (Score:1)
Which is why a tourniquet is not the recommended procedure for a nose bleed, no matter how severe....