This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Violence and Human Rights  • War  • Violence and Human Rights, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

Kimball I. Maull, MD
Birmingham, Ala

Arch Surg. 2000;135:1327.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

It is evident from the analysis by Eiseman et al that DCS provides a challenge and an opportunity for conventional planners on how to allocate resources when, predictably, clinical needs exceed available resources. Damage control surgery, although conceptually new, actually uses well-tested surgical approaches in a more abbreviated context. The operative emphasis is on stopping hemorrhage and controlling ongoing contamination; the physiologic emphasis is on restoring body temperature, normal coagulation, and acid-base balance. The challenge to the surgeon who first encounters the wounded patient is to defer from providing definitive repair. It is the initial surgeon's role to keep the context abbreviated. The challenge to the system is to quickly transport the critically injured casualty in a physiologically supportive environment to a secondary facility for critical care and definitive surgery.

The authors may have overstressed the obstacles to DCS at the forward surgical units and underestimated . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Feasibility of Damage Control Surgery in the Management of Military Combat Casualties
Ben Eiseman, Ernest E. Moore, Daniel R. Meldrum, and Christopher Raeburn
Arch Surg. 2000;135(11):1323-1327.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT