Skip to main content

Unlikely Juxtaposition

There are two words in the English language that I would probably vote as the least unattractive words to string together. They are 'wound' and 'vacuum'. Even having them in the same sentence seems to give goosebumps of implied pain or gruesome circumstance.

And, yet, this is what the doctors have come up with, and they call it a Wound Vacuum. And I would be happier to find out that this Vacuum is an attempt to recreate Galileo's gravity experiment with wounds, showing that they fall from buildings at the same rate; however, this was not the case. Instead, the doctor explained, Kristi's C-section incision wasn't healing quite properly, and they wanted to place a vacuum on it to suck it shut.

Warning: Some blood and gore coming up...

See, most wounds heal from the inside out and close off naturally; however, in Kristi's case, some of the wound was healing faster on top, causing potential air pockets at the skin on top and the skin beneath met up. The air that was trapped inside would cause a very painful infection, yada yada yada, and so the problem needed to be addressed.

Enter the vacuum.

In order to actually place the vacuum on the body, the incision needed to be reopened. It was only about 3 inches wide, but it was nearly a half an inch deep, and it went down in tunnels on either side for about another half inch. And, actually, since it was Friday, they wouldn't have the vacuum until Monday.

Enter the husband.

So, the doctor explained that, since the wound was now open, I, the husband, would need to put fresh gauze into the, roughly 4 inches by 1/2 inch by 1/2 inch cavern under my wife's abdomen with nothing more than sterile water and a q-tip.

This went on until Monday, when they showed us how to use the wound vacuum, and they placed it on her. (One day, I will go into the detail there, but it takes a long time to explain).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Teeth Does The Tooth Fairy Pick Up Each Night in Utah?

Somebody asked me a question about my Tooth Fairy post the other day that got me thinking. How many baby teeth are lost every day in Utah?

I began with Googling. Surely someone else has thought of this and run some numbers, right? Lo, there is a tooth fairy site that claims that the Tooth Fairy collects 300,000 teeth per night.

That's a lot; however, when I ran the numbers, it started to seem awfully low.

Let's assume that the Tooth Fairy collects all baby teeth regardless of quality and we assume that all children lose all their baby teeth. The world population of children sits at 2.2 billion, with 74.2 million of them in the United States. Of those, approximately 896,961 of them are in Utah. This means that somewhere around .04077% of the world's children are in Utah.

If we assume that kids in Utah lose teeth at the same rate as all other children in the world and that each day in the year is just as likely as the rest to lose a tooth, then we have that of the alleged …

Five Reasons Serving on the Athlos Board is Fun Right Now

About 18 months ago, a friend of mine, Bethany Zeyer, let me know about an open position on the Athlos Academy of Utah school board. I've always had a passion for education, and my kids' school seemed like a place where I could have a positive effect on the community.

Also, I'd just finished reading "The Smartest Kids in the World" by Amanda Ripley and, based on Amanda's advice, interviewed the school's director.

I was in the mood to contribute!


I applied and was accepted, and I've been serving on the board for a little over a year now.

Since then, I've learned a whole lot about how a school is run.

I've learned that someone needs to determine the school guidelines for pesticide usage.



And that someone needs to be thinking about the long-term future of the school, whether or not to increase grade capacity, whether or not to match the pay increases big school districts are giving, and most importantly, evaluate whether or not the school is achi…

I don't know you from Adam OR How to Tie Yourself Back to Adam in 150 Easy Steps

Last Sunday, I was working on my genealogy on familysearch.org, a free site provided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for doing pretty extensive family history. While looking for information about a Thomas Neal, I found an individual who had done a bunch of work on his family including is tie into the Garland family, which tied in through Thomas's wife.

So, while I was pondering what to do about Thomas Neal (who's parents I still haven't found), I clicked up the Garland line. It was pretty cool because it went really far back; it's always fun to see that there were real people who you are really related to back in the 14th century or what not.
As I worked my way back through the tree, I noticed it dead-ended at Sir Thomas Morieux, who, according to the chart, was the maternal grandfather-in-law of Humphy Garland (b. 1376).  The name sounded pretty official, so I thought I'd Google him. I learned from Wikipedia that Sir Thomas Morieux married Blanc…