Opinons on Tourni-Kwik ?

[acropolis5]

There has been a lot of recent discussion on the use of tourniquets. Some time ago I purchased several "Tourni-Kwik" , by Cinchtight, for one hand application. However, I've not seen them discussed lately with other brands of one-hand application tourniquets. Does anyone have any experience with or opinons about the Tourni-Kwik?

[exon111]

I've never seen that particular tourniquet in real life, but after googling it I can see why it isn't really popular. From the picture I saw it looks like a piece of latex with hooks on the end. I have serious doubts about how that could be properly applied with one hand, but I really have no experience with this TQ so I'm probably not the best source. Maybe Doc Simon or someone else knowledgeable in these things can chime in.

Here's the link to the pic: http://www.tacticalresponsegear.com/cat ... k-1-18.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JIM]

The tourniquick (TK-4) is IMO a crappy tourniquet, prone to slipping. Some over here like them, some don't. There has been a recent study on tourniquets in which the TK-4 performed pretty good actually, but I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that the test was done by medically trained people which experience in tournquets.


I would go for the MAT or SOFT-T myself.

[tommytrauma]

The tourniquick (TK-4) is IMO a crappy tourniquet, prone to slipping. Some over here like them, some don't. There has been a recent study on tourniquets in which the TK-4 performed pretty good actually, but I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that the test was done by medically trained people which experience in tournquets.


I would go for the MAT or SOFT-T myself.

What he said. However, if you're referring to the study that I'm thinking of, it assessed ease of self application, not effectiveness. I can dig up a study assessing effectiveness in arterial flow occlusion in which the TK4 failed miserably.

I like the SOFT-T, and tacmedsolutions has a bunch of the first gen models being liquidated for ten bucks each.

[acropolis5]

Jim and Tommy, Thanx for the info. But now my quandry is deeper. Is it easy to put on (with training, which I have) and ineffective or is it easy to put on and effective if you're trained. May I trouble you both to give my the links to the studies to which you refered ?

[JIM]

Jim and Tommy, Thanx for the info. But now my quandry is deeper. Is it easy to put on (with training, which I have) and ineffective or is it easy to put on and effective if you're trained. May I trouble you both to give my the links to the studies to which you refered ?

Well it's easy to apply if you have training and preferably 2 hands.. The problem is securing the tq once you've applied it. It's prone to slipping. PM sent.

[tommytrauma]

Jim and Tommy, Thanx for the info. But now my quandry is deeper. Is it easy to put on (with training, which I have) and ineffective or is it easy to put on and effective if you're trained. May I trouble you both to give my the links to the studies to which you refered ?

Well heck, looks like I'm going to have to do some more digging or eat my own words. I clearly remember seeing two studies, one showing that the TK-4 was easy to apply without addresing occlusion, and another showing poor occlusion. Unfortunately, I got a new computer and didn't save my bookmatks and can't find those studies. However, I am finding one giving the TK4 high marks in both areas, and my favoriate low marks. Hmm... time to reevaluate.

http://www.acep.org/workarea/showcontent.aspx?id=40782

Here's a reference to a study finding windlass TQs, including the SOFT-T, to be quite effective;
http://www.combattourniquet.com/tourniq ... onials.php

And another showing the SOFT-T to be 100% effective. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the TK4.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... tBody;col1

I have both the TK4 and the SOFT-T. I've self applied both, and am left with the strong impression that a windlass design such as the SOFT-T would be more effective theh the TK4.

[bobharder]

Guys; We are talking about two different things here. The CAT, MAT, SOFT-T etc. are excellant tourniquets. These are best carried by the Medic/Corpsman or EMS provider. The TK-4 and TK-4L are made where space, weight and cost are highly important, as in individual IFAK'S. They are meant for the guy in the ditch that can carry several annd can administer to themselves while awaiting trained help. One handed.

The only independent TQ study I know of is the U. S. Navy at NEDU. This can be found on the web our on our web site..www.cinchtight.com. I take with a big grain of salt the company sponsored tests..including ours.

The TK-4 and 4L are now and have been deployed with acceptable results, but, again, are only meant for the quich fix individual. Then the big stuff comes in, as the MAT, CAT, SOFT-T, etc. We must recoginize the difference in mission of these products. Apples and oranges.

The comment that the TK-4 and 4L break is surprising. We finally, at last, have that whipped.

Anyway, be also aware that we make the TK-4 and 4L, so this post is rather prejudiced. One sided.

Be well

Old Bob Harder
H&H

[Ovationman]

Guys; We are talking about two different things here. The CAT, MAT, SOFT-T etc. are excellant tourniquets. These are best carried by the Medic/Corpsman or EMS provider. The TK-4 and TK-4L are made where space, weight and cost are highly important, as in individual IFAK'S. They are meant for the guy in the ditch that can carry several annd can administer to themselves while awaiting trained help. One handed.

The CAT is standard issue to the entire U.S Army in their FAKs along with British forces.

[Paragon]

Guys; We are talking about two different things here. The CAT, MAT, SOFT-T etc. are excellant tourniquets. These are best carried by the Medic/Corpsman or EMS provider. The TK-4 and TK-4L are made where space, weight and cost are highly important, as in individual IFAK'S.

The CAT is standard issue to the entire U.S Army in their FAKs along with British forces.

OM beat me to it.

That said, it is nice to see you post here Bob, and I hope that you hang around a bit. I'm sure there are many questions that you could address regarding your product line.

I even have a couple of questions myself, but will let you ease into things before I pop those on you...

Jim

[tommytrauma]

Guys; We are talking about two different things here. The CAT, MAT, SOFT-T etc. are excellant tourniquets. These are best carried by the Medic/Corpsman or EMS provider. The TK-4 and TK-4L are made where space, weight and cost are highly important, as in individual IFAK'S. They are meant for the guy in the ditch that can carry several annd can administer to themselves while awaiting trained help. One handed.

The CAT is standard issue to the entire U.S Army in their FAKs along with British forces.

We put British forces in our first aid kits?

Oh wait, you mean...

[acropolis5]

Gents, thanx again for the info. Tommy, I read the study with great interset. Jim, PM
reply sent. I believe that for my personal needs the TK-4 will continue to be my choice.

[TDW586]

Guys; We are talking about two different things here. The CAT, MAT, SOFT-T etc. are excellant tourniquets. These are best carried by the Medic/Corpsman or EMS provider. The TK-4 and TK-4L are made where space, weight and cost are highly important, as in individual IFAK'S. They are meant for the guy in the ditch that can carry several annd can administer to themselves while awaiting trained help. One handed.

The CAT is standard issue to the entire U.S Army in their FAKs along with British forces.

We put British forces in our first aid kits?

Oh wait, you mean...

lol. Bringin' the funny.

Anyway, if I remember correctly, the Tourni-Quik is that blue thing with the hooks. In my experience, and from what my Corpsman and EMS buddies say, it's a peice. The CAT is standard issue to everyone (USMC as well as USA) in theatre. It's not in the IKAF, but they supplemental issue them. Most people carry them on the offside shoulder of their flak. Rambling, but, the CAT is definately the best one on the market, so far as I am aware.

[bobharder]

Hi Guys; That " Blue Thing' was the TK-2. It was a piece of crap. We replaced all we knew and threw 80,000 away. Reason we made it was that the customer wanted a 2" strap. Worked with one of the best elastomer companies in the U. S. Thought we had it. Never thought the elastomer would stress harden at the hog rings. Crap.

The present TK-4 and 4L do not do this and appear to be acceptable for what they are intended.

I kind of agree that the CAT may be the best all around tourniquet. But it just appears to me that it's like some guys like Fords, some Chevys. All the TQ'S mentioned above look pretty good. I just feel I don't have a dog in that fight. Unless you are the kid in the ditch, we are not in play.

Be well

bob H

[docsven]

I do not like the Tourni-Kwik. I much prefer either the CAT or the SOFT tourniquet.

Docsven

[vikingmedic]

As I understand it, the CAT and or SOF-T are issue with the USA IFAKs, the TK-4 is issue with the USMC IFAKs. Regardless of which model you use, if you need a tourniquet you are pretty screwed anyway. I suppose, in a ditch under fire and bleeding out, it makes good sense to apply one, in 15 years on the street I've never used one. From examining both types, the conclusion that the TK-4 is intended as a stop gap measure is unreasonable. Once you apply a tourniquet you don't want to take it off until you have reached some level of definitive care. Removing the TK-4 in the field to apply a "better" one once the medic reaches you doesn't make sense for several reasons. Most notably if the TK-4 has controlled the bleed then leave it in place, if it hasn't and it was appropriate to apply in the first place, most likely the poor soul has bled out already. If they haven't bled out, assuming the TK-4 was placed appropriately, then you are likely to increase the amount of tissue loss by applying another tourniquet above the TK-4. What's the difference between a stump and a nub? Semantics perhaps but as I understand it surgeons prefer to have more to work with than a nub. While I imagine that the TK-4 would probably control a bleed as intended if applied correctly, the CAT and models similar to it meet the definition of a true tourniquet more than the TK-4.

[Jorian]

Everyone knows the TK-4 and TK4-L aren't up to the level of the CAT or SOF-T, but sometimes...

We did a specialized bid kit (350 of them actually) for a police department wherein they actually spec'ed the TK4. Cost, space and weight constraints dictated it. The difference in price between the TK-4 and the CAT meant that they could add Celox to their kits, hopefully obviating the need for a tourniquet in a lot of cases. It is indeed "a piece", but at least it's a piece of something! And the officers get to keep their belts...

[SteelWolf]

Funny this topic arose...
4 days ago I got dispatched to a call that involved a traumatic amputation of the right arm about 3.5 inches below the shoulder... really gnarly, the first time I have seen such a shitty amputation stateside

I carry several CAT tourniquets in my bag, and just got issued 2 TK-4's.

I couldn't get the CAT far enough up the arm to stop the blood flow, so I tried the TK-4. The flexible elastic band actually got far enough up into the armpit area to effectively work... for a while anyway. It stopped the bleeding for a few minutes then started to slip. I then decided to just use 2 IV constricting bands, which, alongside a hemostat, FINALY stopped the bleeding long enough to get him to the hospital.

So, lesson learned - TOSS YOUR TK-4's!!!

I could MAYBE see it as a viable surgical tourniquet, but definitely not viable for trauma use... I was reading about the new SWAT-T and it is intriguing (basically a mondo IV band...) but I worry those may slip as well. CAT's are great, i've used them PLENTY overseas and can sing their praises all day, but an amputation like the one this poor fellow encountered could not be handled with one. The idea of the TK-4 is great (Namely being flexible enough to be POSSIBLY practical in high arm / thigh injuries), like I said, it INITIALLY worked, but did not constrict enough. I think that in the next year or so, we may see a viable version of this... who knows, maybe the SWAT-T is the way to go. They're pretty cheap I may just buy one and try it out.

[BobtheBreaker]

Funny this topic arose...
4 days ago I got dispatched to a call that involved a traumatic amputation of the right arm about 3.5 inches below the shoulder... really gnarly, the first time I have seen such a shitty amputation stateside

I carry several CAT tourniquets in my bag, and just got issued 2 TK-4's.

I couldn't get the CAT far enough up the arm to stop the blood flow, so I tried the TK-4. The flexible elastic band actually got far enough up into the armpit area to effectively work... for a while anyway. It stopped the bleeding for a few minutes then started to slip. I then decided to just use 2 IV constricting bands, which, alongside a hemostat, FINALY stopped the bleeding long enough to get him to the hospital.

So, lesson learned - TOSS YOUR TK-4's!!!

Yeah...not so much.

The TK-4 was just as effective as your glorious CAT, which is to say they were both useless.

[AZMedic]

TQ around the neck would of worked.

So 2 IV bands did better than a reinforced IV band.

Why not just use the TK4 with hemostats??

Hindsight is good for medical calls for the next time.

[SteelWolf]

TQ around the neck would of worked.

So 2 IV bands did better than a reinforced IV band.

Why not just use the TK4 with hemostats??

Hindsight is good for medical calls for the next time.

Hindsight is good for future reference. I'm not quite sure why I did't just supplement the TK4 with the hemostats I ended up using in the end anyway. Thanks for the food for thought!