Page 58 - JSOM Fall 2020
P. 58

FIGURE 3  Thigh up versus thigh down correlations.

           (A)                                                                                           (B)



























           (C)                                                                                           (D)




























          On all panels, data points represent means of the triplicates. On panels A–C, the y-axis has thigh up pressures (mmHg), and the x-axis has thigh
          down pressures (mmHg). On panel D, the y-axis has thigh up ladder tooth advances (clicks) for occlusion, and the x-axis has thigh down ladder
          tooth advances (clicks) for occlusion. (A) Thigh up versus thigh down secured pressures. (B) Thigh up versus thigh down occlusion pressures.
          (C) Thigh up versus thigh down completion pressures. (D) Thigh up versus thigh down occlusion clicks.




          one-handed  to the  dominant  arm);  during self-thigh  appli-  the 95th percentile regarding application consistency, the co-
          cations, use of a downward versus upward pulling direction   efficients of variation increase to 22% and 25% for thigh and
          does not matter for pressure attainment; and thigh occlusion   arm secured pressures. The “fresh training” of the appliers
          and completion pressures are generally in the range reported   most commonly concluded immediately prior to study appli-
          for 3.8cm-wide Tactical Ratcheting Medical Tourniquet and   cations with practice applications that included knowledge of
          Generation 3 SOF  Tactical Tourniquet–Wide nonpneumatic,   results and performance verbal feedback, real time viewing of
                        ®
          nonelastic, emergency-use limb tourniquets.        tourniquet pressures (knowledge of results), and emphasis on
                                                             reaching secured pressures >150mmHg. We would consider
          Findings related to tourniquet application consistency are that   such fresh training a best-case scenario for maximizing indi-
          75% of freshly trained individual appliers had secured pressure   vidual applier consistency, so we think it reasonable to expect
          coefficients of variation <14% for thigh and arm applications   less consistency per applier in application scenarios occurring
          done without access to pressure information. To encompass   farther out in time from training and following training that


          56  |  JSOM   Volume 20, Edition 3 / Fall 2020
   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63