Page 105 - Journal of Special Operations Medicine - Winter 2014

Evaluation of Commercially Available
Traction Splints for Battlefield Use

Roger W. Lee

eel Research and Development, Inc. wishes to re- Detrick “standardized” the RS for DEPMEDS (Deploy-
Rspond to statements made in “Evaluation of Com- able Medical Systems) and the US Army commissioned
mercially Available Traction Splints for Battlefield Use” an examination authorized by AMEDD. Field Training
(Nicholas M. Studer, Seth M. Grubb, Gregory T. Horn, Exercises (FTX) testing was overseen by the Combat
and Paul D. Danielson; J Spec Oper Med. 2014;46–55). Developer’s office and included the Combat Medical
As the manufacturer of one of the traction products Specialists Division Alpha and Bravo medics at Ft. Sam
included in this classroom study, the REEL Splint (RS; Houston, TX. (Disposition/after-action reports are avail-
Reel Research and Development, Inc, Ben Lomond, CA; able for view at www.splints.com.) It was concluded in
http://splints.webs.com/; NSN 6515-01-250-8936), we field trials that the RS was well suited for many mili-
feel compelled to respond to the study findings, espe- tary care scenarios. Additionally, the RS would replace
cially in regard to the RS: many other, less-effective splints, systemwide, reducing
the overall size, weight, and cube. However, conclusions
(1) In practicality, we agree that the RS was not regarding “line medic” (dismount operations) stated the
designed specifically for use in “dismounted carry” RS may NOT be particularly useful for “line medics to
operations as defined by the authors; carry” as being “heavy and bulky for the medic who has
(2) The universally applicable RS should not limited space.” This was and continues to be our com-
1
have been included in a narrowly focused dis- pany’s position. Given the subject matter of the study
mounted traction study that used a “traction mani- being “dismounted operations,” we logically wonder
kin” in a classroom setting to postulate field results; why the RS was included in a narrowly focused bat-
(3) Studies and standardization of RS—those tlefield traction product evaluation. If the authors had
directly related to military medicine—have taken contacted us for background information or reviewed
place contrary to the authors’ assertions. our website, it would have been clear that the RS was
(4) The authors make unsupported findings re- not suited for the study. The other three tested products
garding the use and efficacy of the RS for difficult were single pole–style traction devices and, as such, are
“angulated bone and joint immobilization,” calling not comparable in design to the more universal traction
for replacement using aluminum malleable splints and angulated immobilization product (RS).
(SAM Splint);
(5) The authors make a broad and “outside the The authors offer a set of completely unsupported as-
scope of study” recommendation that the RS should sertions comprising vastly different care areas, clearly
be entirely removed from military service, because outside the scope of their study. One such conclusion
the RS has “persisted too long”; is that the RS could be overall “replicated” by the alu-
(6) The RS has been clinically proved to be effec- minum malleable SAM Splint now carried in various
tive for designated areas of inclusion—the authors trauma sets. The authors offer no pertinent or action-
should retract any unsupported hypothesis of RS able clinical evidence to support such an assertion.
efficacy outside the study’s confines of evaluation. Those possessing experience in field medicine, specifi-
cally lower extremity angulated bone and joint trauma,
Initially, the authors describe the US Army’s traction appreciate that these injuries compromise a separately
splint posture as having “little training or standardiza- distinct, comprehensive, and challenging area of patient
tion” and state that “no previous studies have evalu- care. Military medicine involves a plethora of traumatic
ated these devices and their suitability to the military injuries occurring in war and peacetime settings. Often,
environment.” This statement is not accurate. The De- lower extremity injuries must be completely stabilized as
fense Medical Standardization Board (DMSB) at Ft. encountered, preserving limb patency while addressing

95