johnboy Posted 20 October , 2013 Share Posted 20 October , 2013 Did soldiers donate blood and if so, where? I ask as a follow on from a post in Chit Chat re survival rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seaJane Posted 20 October , 2013 Share Posted 20 October , 2013 Blood groups were only identified in 1900 so the transfusion system was still young - for all that, transfusions did happen but I haven't found out how/where yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 20 October , 2013 Share Posted 20 October , 2013 Blood transfusions were mostly done person to person, not with donated blood as we know now. Very much in its infancy as a means of treatment. The biggest problem they had was stopping the blood from clotting while being transfused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMeech Posted 20 October , 2013 Share Posted 20 October , 2013 Hi There are a few words (page 105-106) on blood transfusion in mark Harrison's book 'The Medical War', OUP, 2010. "Transfusion was usually conducted, if at all, on an arm-to-arm basis using syringes, as blood could not be stored for longer than a week." This was mainly in the last year of the war, Canadian MOs played a major role in increasing its use. It was also the case that 'Britain' and its allies were in advance of German and Austrian practice in this. That continued into the Second World War. See his other book 'Medicine & Victory', OUP, 2004. This shows that wounded German troops appear to have had a better chance of survival if captured by the British than be treated by German doctors as far as blood requirements were concerned. MIKE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 20 October , 2013 Share Posted 20 October , 2013 Wiki has quite a good bit on the 1910's and WW1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_transfusion "While the first transfusions had to be made directly from donor to receiver before coagulation, in the 1910s it was discovered that by adding anticoagulant and refridgerating the blood it was possible to store it for some days, thus opening the way for blood banks. The first non-direct transfusion was performed on March 27, 1914 by the Belgian doctor Albert Hustin, though this was a diluted solution of blood. The Argentine doctor Luis Agote used a much less diluted solution in November of the same year. Both used sodium citrate as an anticoagulant.The First World War acted as a catalyst for the rapid development of blood banks and transfusion techniques. The first blood transfusion using blood that had been stored and cooled was performed on January 1, 1916. Geoffrey Keynes, a British surgeon, developed a portable machine that could store blood to enable transfusions to be carried out more easily. His work was recognized as saving thousands of lives during the war. Oswald Hope Robertson, a medical researcher and U.S. Army officer, is generally credited with establishing the first blood bank while serving in France during World War One." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 20 October , 2013 Share Posted 20 October , 2013 It's usually worth doing a forum search http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=112243#entry1067821http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15055#entry114109 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 20 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 20 October , 2013 Didn't think Centurion. I wanted to link it to another thread re survivability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBettsMCDCM Posted 20 October , 2013 Share Posted 20 October , 2013 A local Man who went on to become a Doctor was in recipeit of Blood after being wounded Hunter Rowe was the gents name & he lived at Outwell Upwell near Wisbech onthe Norfolk Border, there was a Daily Mirror article at the time apparently that gave the details Blood donation was in its infancy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc2 Posted 21 October , 2013 Share Posted 21 October , 2013 The US did use banked blood during WWI, and deployed an entire blood bank to the theatre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelclark Posted 21 October , 2013 Share Posted 21 October , 2013 I could write a whole paper on WW1 blood transfusion but as they say, a picture is worth... From the Journal of the RAMC ("Direct Transfusion of Blood" Lt A. Galbraith Faulds Nov 1916) That looks like some sort of torture and I am glad that I am looking at it now and not with my morning cuppa which is when i usually look at the forum! H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelclark Posted 21 October , 2013 Share Posted 21 October , 2013 Hazel, I've actually done blood transfusions in various forms - the nearest to direct transfusion was the collection of blood into a citrate syringe and transfusing immediately into the patient - this is the method we used for neonatal transfusion when 10-50 ml was needed. I can't imagine being physically hooked up to the casualty though! All I can say is yik! But then I am just finishing my morning tea with my morning dose of methotrexate! Hazel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 21 October , 2013 Share Posted 21 October , 2013 Odd question time, How do they know how much a person needs? khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 21 October , 2013 Share Posted 21 October , 2013 Odd question time, How do they know how much a person needs? khaki I think I have it worked out, blood pressure, right? (k) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nthornton1979 Posted 21 October , 2013 Share Posted 21 October , 2013 I've recently read an account where a wounded soldier offered his own blood to save another chap who was severely wounded. I'm pretty sure the 'donor' was later killed in action and the transfusion was mentioned in a letter home to his parents, commending their sons actions. I've had several blood tranfusions myself but if they tried to come near me with that contraption (post 9) I'd run a mile! Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 21 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 21 October , 2013 I could write a whole paper on WW1 blood transfusion but as they say, a picture is worth... From the Journal of the RAMC ("Direct Transfusion of Blood" Lt A. Galbraith Faulds Nov 1916) What is the diagram actually showing, an arm to arm transfusion? Where is the tube going, Was it difficult to do? How was pressure regulated to make sure the blood went the right way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 21 October , 2013 Share Posted 21 October , 2013 The donor gave blood via an artery into a vein of the recipient. As arterial pressure is higher than venous pressure the flow was in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medic7922 Posted 21 October , 2013 Share Posted 21 October , 2013 Interesting topic, I am an Ex-RAMC trained Blood Transfusion technician and National Blood Service, Although more to do with the 2nd World War I actually worked with the old army guys who set up the modern National Blood Service as we know it in Bristol the same guys where in BATS during the war 'British Army Transfusion Service" ensconced in Southmead Hospital Bristol and used a Bat as their insignia. One of the chaps had a collection of First world war Blood taking equipment from glass bottles, rudimentary giving sets and donor to recipient large bore needles and rubber tubing plus some evil looking tourniquets, he also still had the old grouping serum bottles and test tubes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 21 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 21 October , 2013 The donor gave blood via an artery into a vein of the recipient. As arterial pressure is higher than venous pressure the flow was in the right direction. Thanks Sue. But what was the tube used for? Also was the donors blood measured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 21 October , 2013 Share Posted 21 October , 2013 Transfusion was in its infancy and the methods rudimentary. As far I know (!!) an incision would be made in the forearm of the donor, exposing the radial artery, and a cannula inserted - the cannula would be attached to a length of tubing and at that stage clamped off so that no blood would flow. The arm of the recipient would be cannulated, this time into a vein, and the loose end of the tubing attached. Then the clamp would be removed, allowing the blood to flow from donor to recipient. The blood flow would probably be measured purely on timing, assessing at what speed the blood was flowing and the bore of the tubing. Far less blood would be given compared to our standards today - I don't think the concept of four or five units (pint equivalent-ish) would have been in practice then - just enough to stabilise the condition of the patient. I realise this is an outlandish suggestion for the GWF, but if you're a reader of fiction, try Robert Ryan's 'Dead Man's Land' which is a WW1 murder mystery, set on the Western Front, and has lots of well researched contemporary blood transfusion action in a casualty clearing station! Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 21 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 21 October , 2013 Thanks again Sue. I am still a bit confused about the tube shown the sketch. I can understand your explanation of donor reciever which seems to be 2 connection. The sketch appears to give 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medic7922 Posted 21 October , 2013 Share Posted 21 October , 2013 One of the methods used for arm to arm transfusions was a large bore needle was inserted into the recipient vain the tubing went back to a glass 50 ml syringe, the syringe was attached to a two way adjustable valve and the other tube into the donors arm via a vain, 50 mls of blood was drawn from the donor into the syringe then the valve was opened and the blood transfused in to the recipient approx. 550 to 600 mls was given at one time which was recorded to ensure not to much blood was taken. This type of procedure was common in the resuscitation area so to stabilise the casualties blood pressure and blood loss prior to an operation as one of the major killers was shock from severe blood loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medic7922 Posted 21 October , 2013 Share Posted 21 October , 2013 Although this is a WW2 Russian Army Medical Arm To Arm Blood Transfusion set it is similar to a WW1 blood set Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGM Posted 21 October , 2013 Share Posted 21 October , 2013 Thanks again Sue. I am still a bit confused about the tube shown the sketch. I can understand your explanation of donor reciever which seems to be 2 connection. The sketch appears to give 3. A suggestion - anticoagulant was introduced through the long, dark tube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 21 October , 2013 Author Share Posted 21 October , 2013 Thanks for all the replies. Although not very explicit this may interest some of you http://www.pbs.org/wnet/redgold/basics/ukandspain.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 22 October , 2013 Share Posted 22 October , 2013 Can I suggest (this is daring!) that arterial to venous transfusion was a procedure that was also in practice early in the war. Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now