![]() That shock was a frequent complication of severe injury was well known, but no case or treatment was found until Henderson in 1908 showed that shock was due to reduction in blood volume, and this could be treated by replacing the lost fluid. Amputation rates were unacceptably high, and soldiers continued to die of shock. Infection and gangrene remained a problem. ![]() The mortality, although improved, was anything but satisfactory. Because of overwhelming numbers of wounded, surgery was often delayed up to 48 hours. Unfortunately, this is not how it worked out. Furthermore, new mobile forward medical units, the field ambulance and the casualty clearing station were to ensure adequate first aid and early evacuation of casualties. It is little wonder then that the surgeons set out for France with high hopes and gallons of antiseptics. Pasteur had discovered bacteria and as a result, Lister advocated antisepsis. Even at the turn of the 20th century the treatment of infection and gangrene in war wounds remained an enigma.Īt the outbreak of WWI, however, the answers to the mysteries of the wounds of war seemed to have been solved. If the soldier did survive the initial wound, he could then look forward, all too frequently, to infection, gangrene, secondary hemorrhage, amputation, and eventually death or permanent deformity or disability. Serious wounds in most cases led to death. Military surgeons quickly discovered that war wounds had dire consequences for the soldier, and the more sophisticated the weapon, the more complicated the injury. ![]() It was not until the turn of the 20th century, with the formation of the British and Canadian Medical Corps, that military commanders reluctantly accepted, as part of the battle plan, medical units with fixed establishments.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |