You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary
A blast from the present meets the MAST from the past: should the pneumatic anti-shock garment ever be used?
  1. Jerry Ray Baskerville
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jerry Baskerville, Research Director Emergency Medicine, 1RB Chairman, 2606 Hospital Boulevard 3 West, Corpus Christi, TX 78405, USA; jerry.baskerville{at}christushealth.org; jerry{at}jrbaskerville.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/emj.2008.071324

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The case report of Owen and Castle1 renews the controversy about usage of the pneumatic anti-shock garment (PASG). KwaZulu–Natal in rural South Africa is a location where surgical care is much delayed. Their patient had no blood pressure and was more than 45 minutes away from surgical care. He survived a severed internal iliac vein from a gunshot wound and would surely have died except for the usage of PASG.

    Since the report in 1958 by Gardner et al2 of a patient with placenta percreta, the use of medical anti-shock trousers (MAST) has been debated. Their patient required 29 000 ml …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.