Portable hyperbaric chambers: An expensive folly? LA Times article

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-skeptic13-2009jul13,0,3545952.story

Interesting……. I wish the author added pics of the chambers he was referring to in his article instead of having the Sechrist 2500 photo with MJ in it. Anything for attention to the story I guess. FYI – a Sechrist 2500 chamber is around 1500 to 1700 lbs (That’s not considered portable!). Using that photo in your article is like selling a Honda on ebay with a photo of a Rolls Royce genius!

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Portable hyperbaric chambers: An expensive folly? LA Times article

  1. My concerns are:
    a. Using a photo of a legitimate chamber in an article that focuses on portable air chambers/gammow bags.
    b. The statement: Though hyperbaric treatments are generally safe, especially when they’re filled with room air, there is always a risk when oxygen tanks are involved, Freiberger says.

    (There are also risks when you get into your car) What do you mean when you say oxygen tanks??? Did you mean chambers or liquid gas vessels that every hospital has outside in the parking lot?

    THIS STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE SAID: There is oxygen involved in any hyperbaric chamber whether it is a monoplace or multiplace chamber and the risks are mitigated by utilizing strict safety standards and protocols especially for monoplace chambers that are filled with 100% oxygen.

    In the end, the point of this guys story is that plastic bag chambers are a spoof when used or marketed for indications other that what they were made for (I do not disagree), 100% oxygen filled monoplace chambers are more dangerous than air filled chambers (air filled Multiplace chambers account for around 5% of chambers in use in the USA). The physician works at a multiplace hyperbaric chamber facility and was either misquoted a dozen times or that the author of the article did not publish the whole interview. Some clarification from both parties would be nice.

  2. I would also note that the “altitude bags” mentioned max out at 1.3 ATA. The UHMS (and our LCD here in California) require 1.4 ATA minimum pressure in a chamber before it is considered hyperbaric.

    I’m an old sailor, not a mountain climber so I know little about altitude chambers hauled up the mountain side. I imagine they are fine for that which they were designed, but they are not capable of providing hyperbaric therapy for approved “on label” conditions.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s