Surgical registrars say the darnedest things. Last week a surgical registrar, a good friend of mine, tried to impress his consultant in the operating theatre. Totally unprompted and from out of the blue he claimed the penis could be a reliable alternative for gaining venous access in shocked patients. The consultant gave him the longest and blankest stare ever stared. Time stopped.
Then afterwards, in an attempt to make up for his awkward faux pas, my surgical registrar pal sent me an e-mail with two references. None of those two journals are available to me where I am at the moment.
I have no intention of replying to his e-mail. I won’t let him get out of the weirdness he created that day just yet.
Thomas D says:
Funny, weird – but also interesting. This seems as viable as an I.O. access. The I.P., intra penile, access. I did get to read the Urology article, and they got flow rates comparable to good I.O. needles by inserting i.v. cannulas into the corpus cavernosum, and much higher flows with bigger or multiple cannulas in place. The penile corpora was easily identifiable and accessable even after they had drained the animals for blood to the state of shock. All attempts at I.P. access was successful, and no major adverse effects were observed:
“Throughout the 18 attempts of intracavernosal vascular access, no failures occurred, and a single trial was all that was needed for each attempt. The dense tunica albuginea allowed easy identification of the corpora from the surrounding structures, rendering corporeal cannulation easy. This dense fascial covering keeps the sinusoidal network opened even in states of extreme volume depletion. Additionally, our transfusion lines were established within 14 to 48 seconds and were easily maintained throughout all sessions.”
But I think as long as the medical profession is still male dominated, we won’t really see this method being used much – let alone mentioned much. Still, I can’t wait for Cliff to teach this at his HEMS induction course!