International perspective of tourniquet use in extremity vascular trauma: a commentary from the Sri Lankan civil war experience

  • Amila Ratnayake
  • Miklosh Bala
  • Tamara Jean WorltonEmail author
Letter to the Editor

Civilian trauma care has always been influenced by lessons learned in war trauma. Currently this transfer of knowledge has been exemplified by The Hartford Consensus III: Implementation of Bleeding Control which examines and advocates for tourniquet use in civilian settings [1]. The authors seek to share their unique experience with combat extremity vascular trauma for a global perspective on use of tourniquets in unconventional warfare.

A recent single-institution retrospective analysis by Smith et al. of pre hospital tourniquet application matched with a comparable group without tourniquets in a civilian level 1 trauma center concluded that tourniquet application was favorably associated with less shock at presentation to emergency department, decreased blood product utilization and decreased limb related complications. In this study, the average time from tourniquet placement to arrival in the Emergency Department was 23.9 min and the majority were placed by trained medical...




Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.


  1. 1.
    Jacobs LM, Wade D, McSwain NE, et al. Hartford consensus: a call to action for THREAT, a medical disaster preparedness concept. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218(3):467–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith AA, Ochoa JE, Wong S, et al. Prehospital tourniquet use in penetrating extremity trauma: decreased blood transfusions and limb complications. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019;86(1):43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shackelford SA, Butler FK Jr, Kragh JF Jr, et al. Optimizing the use of limb tourniquets in tactical combat casualty care: TCCC guideline change 14–02. J Spec Oper Med. 2015;15:17–311.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singleton JAG, Gibb IE, Hunt NCA, Bull AMJ, Clasper JC. Identifying future ‘unexpected’ survivors: a retrospective cohort study of fatal injury patterns in victims of improvised explosive devices. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003130. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith S, Devine M, Taddeo J, McAlister VC. Injury profile suffered by targets of antipersonnel improvised explosive devices: prospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e014697. Scholar
  6. 6.
    As Ratnayake, Samarasinghe B, Wijeyaratne M, Sheriffdeen AH. Asia: Sri Lanka. In: Rasmussen T, editor. Rich’s vascular trauma. 3rd ed. New York: Elsevier; 2016. p. 287–292.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Samokhvalov IM, Pronchenko AA, Reva VA. Europe: Russia. In: Rasmussen T, editor. Rich’s vascular trauma. 3rd ed. New York: Elsevier; 2016. p. 301–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Military Hospital NarahenpitaColomboSri Lanka
  2. 2.Hadassah Medical CenterJerusalemIsrael
  3. 3.Department of General SurgeryWalter Reed National Military Medical CenterBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations