Page 108 - Journal of Special Operations Medicine - Winter 2014

Response to Mr Lee’s Letter to the Editor

CPT Nicholas M. Studer, MC, FS, USA; 2LT Seth M. Grubb, MS, USAR;
CPT Gregory T. Horn, MC, USA; COL Paul D. Danielson, MC, USAR

e read Mr Lee’s vigorous defense of his company’s comments of our subject population. This diverse group
Wproduct, the REEL Splint (RS), with great inter- of both active and reserve Army, Air Force, Navy, and
est. We believe traction splinting is a critically important Coast Guard enlisted field medical providers provided
battlefield procedure that has been unjustly deempha- a rare glimpse into the joint environment in which the
sized, and thus we appreciate all discussion on this topic. Armed Forces currently operate. Of note, this project
received no funding of any kind—government or com-
Mr Lee implies we did not thoroughly investigate his mercial—and existed solely because of voluntary efforts
product. In fact, our article, “Evaluation of Commer- and participation by those involved. We hope that oth-
cially Available Traction Splints for Battlefield Use,” ers might try to replicate our study or conduct similar
also cited Auerbach et al.’s 1984 research in which scientific investigations. Until that time, our study re-
the RS was deemed superior to the Thomas splint. We mains the most rigorous, unbiased, and modern exami-
also were aware of the advertised internal memoranda nation of these devices.
by combat medic instructors from the Army Medical
Department Center & School in 1987 that reported With the growing commercialization of devices used on
their opinion that the RS was superior to the Hare and the battlefield, every decision for or against a device or
Thomas splints then in use. Technology available for product by the military is a negative or positive for some-
battlefield care has changed over 30 years, and com- one in industry. The authors are interested in putting the
parisons must be made to the devices available at this best equipment and training in the hands of field provid-
current time for a similar application. ers who care for our wounded. We wish Mr Lee’s com-
pany the best of success in their commercial endeavors
In our study, the RS took on average the longest to apply and hope that the results we reported spur them to cre-
of the devices tested and had the second highest failure ate even better products for our Servicemembers.
rate despite being the device with which participants had
the greatest experience. We did not compensate for the
RS’s advantage of preexisting experience. The RS was Disclaimer
rated lowest of all four tested splints by participants for The view(s) expressed herein are those of the author(s)
overall military use. Subjective commentary from par- and do not reflect the official policy or position of the
ticipants was near-universally negative of the device’s US Army Medical Department, the US Army Office of
applicability for use on the battlefield in any capacity. the Surgeon General, the Department of the Army and
Department of Defense, or the US Government.
No experiment can replicate all the factors encountered
by medical providers in a field environment. Our study
used an accepted and validated simulator in a research Disclosures
environment, thereby allowing us to control as many The authors have nothing to disclose. The authors have
variables as possible to render a fair comparison among no financial interest in, nor receive payments from any
devices. We maintain that the conditions of this study medical device manufacturers or distributors.
were such that our findings and conclusions are general-
izable to the field, and this is confirmed by the recorded References available on request

98