Best Chest Seals: How HyFin, HALO, SAM, Sentinel, Russell and Bolin Compare in the Studies

There's no single winner among the best chest seals. Researchers have tested them on two separate jobs, venting when blood gets into the wound and staying stuck to dirty, sweaty or bloody skin, and the seals that did best on one job didn't lead on the other. So the right pick depends on which failure you most need to prevent, where the seal will be carried, and whether the evidence covers the exact version you're buying.

Chest Seals Compared — At a Glance

Each results column comes from a different study with its own setup, so read across a row with care. The review's composite scores are in the trade-off section. Sources: Kheirabadi et al. 2017; Supinski et al. 2012 as reported in Paquette et al. 2021; maker pages captured 13 October 2026.

Which chest seal is best? What the evidence and the badges actually say

What is the best chest seal? No brand comes out on top across the board. The published studies test designs against a specific challenge, and each result belongs to the version that was on the bench at the time. Two things separate seals in those tests: how the vent copes once blood reaches it, and whether the adhesive holds on soiled skin after rough storage.

Start with what the official guidance says, since a lot of product listings lean on it. The 2026 TCCC guidelines still call for a vented chest seal on any open or sucking chest wound, with a non-vented one only when no vented seal is available. Responders are then told to watch for a tension pneumothorax building up afterwards. That order dates back to 2013, when the committee voted in Guideline Change 13-02. Want the detail on why vented came first, and whether to stock both kinds? Our guide to choosing a vented or non-vented chest seal covers that choice, and this page compares the brands and their versions.

Now look at what the guidance leaves out. The 2026 TCCC guidelines point to CoTCCC-recommended tourniquets and name Combat Gauze as the hemostatic dressing of choice, and they name no chest seal brand. You can check the current guideline text yourself, and our primer on the Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) guidelines covers the background. Older history muddies it a little. Schauer and colleagues, writing in 2017, said the Committee on TCCC (CoTCCC) "has approved numerous chest seal devices" (Schauer et al., 2017). So a CoTCCC badge may point to a real approval at some point. It won't tell you which seal beat which, or whether the approved version is the one on the page.

Press releases are the other trap. PMI put out a release in July 2010 headlined "PMI Halo Chest Seal Outperforms in Independent Study" (Newswire). The release describes adhesion tests on four seals (Halo, HyFin, Asherman and Bolin) by a lab it doesn't name, and it cites no published paper. The HALO in that release was an occlusive seal, the Asherman and Bolin had valves, and none of the four is necessarily the version sold today. Treat it as what it is, a maker's claim about its own product.

How much weight can any ranking carry, then? Less than the listings suggest. Every comparison here comes from pigs, foam or a small group of volunteers, usually with four to eight animals per seal, and makers now sell several versions under the tested names, which the papers don't match to today's models. Chest wounds in people, real evacuation times, a medic working in the dark: none of that was in the test rooms.

So what's a buyer supposed to do with "best chest seal"? Turn it into three questions. Which failure would hurt most in your setting? Which design has evidence against that failure? And does that evidence cover the version on your quote? The rest of this page works through each one.

Venting with blood in the wound: where seals separated

With blood in the wound, vented seals stopped behaving alike. In a 2017 US Army swine study, the Sentinel and Russell held every time, while the Bolin and SAM, both one-way-valve seals, mostly failed as blood pooled under them. An earlier Navy study, which put blood into the chest but not into the wound tract, found no difference between three seals. Both results matter when you're looking for the best vented chest seal.

Kheirabadi's Army team put blood into chest wounds on 26 pigs: Sentinel and Russell held in 6 of 6, HyFin in 4 of 6, SAM in 1 of 4 and Bolin in 0 of 4. The setup was harsh on purpose. The team at the US Army Institute of Surgical Research (USAISR) put 226 mL of blood into each chest, sealed the wound, then pushed another 50 mL of blood straight into the wound and added air into the chest step by step (Kheirabadi et al., 2017). A seal counted as a success only if it stayed on and the chest never reached the study's tension threshold: intrapleural pressure of +1 mm Hg or more plus a shift of more than 20% in the physiologic readings.

What went wrong with the valve seals? A one-way valve and a set of laminar channels both count as vented, and in Kheirabadi's test they behaved very differently once blood reached them. With the Bolin and the SAM, blood pooled under the dressing. In 75% of those cases it pushed the seal off the skin and leaked out the edge. In the other 25% it clotted in the valve and blocked it, and tension built behind the plug. The channel seals let blood and air run out along the channels instead, and breathing and oxygen levels stayed close to normal.

Channel geometry seems to matter too. Wells and Aho ran a bench test in 2025: eight new laminar designs against six commercial seals, with fluid pumped through a foam "wound" at three pressures. Wider channels and more channels drained faster and filled up less (Wells and Aho, 2025). It's a foam model, and the authors disclose that the Mayo Foundation has a financial interest in technology some of them developed, so use it for the design point and nothing more.

Now the counter-result. Kotora's group at Naval Medical Center Portsmouth tested HyFin, SAM and Sentinel, eight pigs each, with repeated air boluses and a 10% blood infusion. All three seals let the air and blood out, and the animals didn't go into tension with a seal in place. The team called the three "equally effective" (Kotora et al., 2013). Why the gap between the two studies? Our reading is where the blood went: both teams put about a tenth of the pig's blood volume into the chest, but only Kheirabadi's then ran blood through the wound tract, right under the seal. That's an interpretation. Neither paper tested it head to head.

The vented-versus-unvented question sits underneath all of this. In the 2013 Army study, the unvented seal let tension build in every pig after about 1.4 liters of air, while the vented seal held through 2 liters. That result (Kheirabadi et al., 2013) is why TCCC switched to vented first. If you want every study on chest seal function laid out in one place, our explainer covers what a chest seal does and the studies behind it.

Keep the limits in view. These are pigs, four to eight per seal, and the papers, published in 2013 and 2017, don't say which of today's models they match. Still, the variables are clear enough to use. How much blood is likely to reach the vent? Is the vent a valve or channels? How wide, and how many? When a supplier quotes you a vented seal, ask for blood-challenge results on that design and that version.

Staying stuck: adhesion on sweaty, bloody skin and after storage

A vent only helps if the seal stays on. Adhesion turned out to depend on the surface and on how the seal had been stored, and the same brand moved up or down between studies. So there isn't one answer to "best chest seal adhesion". There's an answer for blood, one for heat and cold, and one for sweaty, hairy human skin.

Storage first, since seals spend most of their life in a pack or a vehicle. Arnaud's Navy team stored seals for about 17 hours at −19.5 °C or 71.5 °C, and Russell, Fast Breathe, HyFin and SAM still stuck afterwards while Bolin scored lower and breached most. They'd started with eight vented seals, smeared the swine skin with the kind of grime you'd find in the field, and kept the five with the best scores at room temperature (Arnaud et al., 2016). Then they peeled and pulled. At room temperature, the five weren't separated.

Blood is a different test. Back in 2008, the same Navy group compared two older seals, the Asherman and the Bolin, on swine skin. Both kept tension from building. On dry skin they scored alike, but on blood-soiled skin the Bolin scored 2.7 and the Asherman 0.4 on a 0–3 adherence scale (Arnaud et al., 2008). So the seal sold as the Bolin slipped after extreme storage in 2016 but held on through blood in 2008.

Then there's the only volunteer comparison the 2021 review found. Supinski's group stuck seals on human volunteers and judged that the SAM with valve and the Bolin performed better, because they came loose less often. The volunteers sweated with exercise, some had body hair, and the team "burped" the seals and stuck them back down to see whether they'd re-adhere. Across six seals (Asherman, Bolin, the non-vented Halo and HyFin, Russell and the SAM with valve) the adherence differences weren't statistically significant. The Sentinel and the H&H Wound Seal Kit fared worse, and the authors said neither should be kept in military inventory.

Here's the catch with that study. Supinski's work hasn't appeared as a journal paper (none turned up in our October 2026 PubMed search). We know it through the 2021 systematic review by Paquette and colleagues, which pulled its results from an unpublished doctoral dissertation. It's the only human comparison the review found, and it comes second-hand.

Why swine skin isn't the last word

Paquette's review points out that pig hair and skin differ from ours, which is one reason a seal can rank well on swine skin and middling on a sweaty volunteer. When a supplier shows you an adhesion number, ask three things. Swine skin or human? Clean, blood-soiled or sweaty? Stored hot or cold before the test, and for how long?

Put the three studies together and the pattern is about conditions, with the brand coming second. Blood, sweat, hair, cold and heat each work on an adhesive in a different way, and burping a seal loads the edge again. If your seals ride in a vehicle through a summer, storage data matters most. If they'll go on a sweaty operator who's moving, the volunteer data matters more. Either way, ask for adhesion results that match the surface and the storage your seals will actually see, on the version you're buying.

The trade-off the evidence shows

Put the two variables side by side and no seal clearly leads on both in the published tests. Sentinel tied for the best venting result with blood and ranked among the poorest on volunteers' skin, while SAM and Bolin did the opposite. So the choice comes down to which failure you'd rather design against: a vent that blocks with blood, or a seal that lifts with sweat and movement.

The table sets each seal's venting result beside its adhesion result and the review's composite score.

Venting, adhesion and composite results by seal, from separate studies

Sentinel and Bolin sit at opposite corners: one never failed to vent in the swine tests and struggled to stay on people, the other failed all four bleeding-wound tests in 2017 and was among the better performers on people. Sources: Kheirabadi et al. 2017; Arnaud et al. 2016; Paquette et al. 2021 (Supinski data and Table 6).

Paquette's review scored HyFin Vent and Russell highest at 2.75, with Sentinel last at 1.8, and the authors call the evidence limited. The differences between those total scores weren't statistically significant (p = 0.299), which the authors put down to a limited data set. The review screened 683 articles and kept six quantitative studies from 1990 to 2020. Then it gave each seal a weighted score that mixes swine adhesion, human adhesion, valve tests and the combined bleeding-wound test. That composite is the closest thing to a published chest seal comparison across both variables, and it's a tidy summary of old tests. It isn't a buying list. It blends very different setups, and it can't place a seal that no study included.

How do you choose, then? Name the failure you fear most in your setting. If wounds are likely to bleed and evacuation could be slow, a blocked or lifting vent is the bigger risk, so give the venting results more weight. If the seal will be worn for a long time on someone sweating and moving, or burped and re-stuck, adhesion is the bigger risk. Then shortlist the designs with evidence against that failure, on the version you can buy. That's also the line to put in your request to suppliers, rather than "send me the best brand".

Same name, different seal: matching a study to the version you can buy

Brand names have covered different designs over the years. A study on "HyFin" or "SAM" applies to the version that was tested, and today's lineups list several versions under one name. Before you rely on any result in this guide, check that the version on your quote matches the version in the study.

The clearest case comes from Afghanistan. Schauer's registry team found that the HyFin and HALO seals used in Afghanistan weren't vented, because the vented versions hadn't yet reached the conventional Army supply chain. They looked at 62 casualties with gunshot or puncture wounds to the chest in the Department of Defense Prehospital Trauma Registry. Forty-six got a chest seal, and most of those seals weren't vented, even though the guideline had switched to vented partway through the study period. Where the brand was recorded, HALO came up most often (Schauer et al., 2017). So "the HALO" in an Afghanistan field record and the HALO Chest Seal Vented on sale now aren't the same product.

SAM shows the same thing from the other side. The seal in Kheirabadi's study and in Paquette's review is the "SAM Chest Seal with Valve". SAM Medical's current page lists three models: the SAM Chest Seal Valved 2.0, a Non Valved seal and a Combo pack, each with its own NSN (SAM Medical). North American Rescue lists the HyFin Vent, the HyFin Vent Compact and a non-vented HyFin, again under separate NSNs (نجات آمریکای شمالی). TacMed Solutions sells the HALO in vented and non-vented versions (TacMed Solutions).

Tested versions versus versions on sale in October 2026

A matching name is where the check starts. Sources: Schauer et al. 2017; Kotora et al. 2013; Kheirabadi et al. 2013; Arnaud et al. 2016; Kheirabadi et al. 2017; Paquette et al. 2021; PMI press release, 2010; maker and seller product pages listed in the references.

Which version did a study test? Check the product name in the paper's methods. If it doesn't name the model, treat the version as unknown and ask the maker which one was tested; the study year alone won't tell you. A result only travels to your quote when the quoted version matches. Seals that no published study has compared, like FoxSeal and Beacon, are a separate case, and the profiles below say so.

Write the exact version on the order, and ask how long the seal is labeled to last in storage. That second question matters because many seals sit in kits for years before anyone opens them.

Seal by seal in 2026: HyFin, HALO, SAM, Sentinel, Russell, Bolin and others

Here's what's known about each named seal: who makes or sells it, the vent design, the versions on sale, the NSN where the maker lists one, and what the studies tested and found. Seals with no published comparison we could find are marked that way. That's a gap in the research, and it says nothing either way about the seal. Maker and seller details are from their product pages as captured on 13 October 2026.

HyFin (North American Rescue)

HyFin uses laminar channel vents in its vented versions. In Kheirabadi's bleeding-wound model the vented HyFin held in 4 of 6 pigs, and in Kotora's study, which put blood into the chest but not into the wound tract, it matched SAM and Sentinel. Arnaud's 2016 storage test found it still stuck after heat and cold, and Paquette's composite put the HyFin Vent joint top at 2.75. North American Rescue lists the HyFin Vent under NSN 6510-01-624-0840 (نجات آمریکای شمالی), the HyFin Vent Compact twin pack under 6510-01-682-2091 (نجات آمریکای شمالی), and the non-vented HyFin under 6510-01-532-8019.

HALO (TacMed Solutions)

HALO was the brand recorded most often in the Afghanistan registry, in its non-vented form. We found no peer-reviewed study that names the vented HALO in a comparison, so it doesn't appear in Kheirabadi's 2017 results or in Paquette's composite. So a HyFin vs HALO chest seal choice can't be settled from published data yet. The non-vented HALO (listed under Curaplex in Paquette's review) was among the eight seals in Supinski's volunteer study, in the group of six that weren't significantly different, and it was the unvented seal that let tension build in Kheirabadi's 2013 study. TacMed Solutions labels both HALO versions with a 6-year shelf life (TacMed Solutions).

SAM (SAM Medical)

The SAM in the studies had a one-way valve. It vented through blood in only 1 of 4 pigs, kept its grip after hot and cold storage, and, in Supinski's volunteer study, was one of the two seals judged to perform better, though its edge over the other four wasn't statistically significant. Anyone weighing a HALO vs SAM chest seal choice has a known trade-off on the SAM side and missing data on the vented HALO side. On SAM Medical's page the Valved 2.0 carries NSN 6510-01-658-7745, the Non Valved 6510-01-621-1129 and the Combo 6510-01-656-8718. SAM gives its seals a 6-year shelf life.

Sentinel Chest Seal (Safeguard Medical)

The Sentinel Chest Seal held in 6 of 6 pigs with blood in the wound and matched HyFin and SAM in Kotora's study. On people it fared badly: Supinski's group put it among the poorest and advised against keeping it in military inventory, and its composite score was the lowest at 1.8. Safeguard Medical lists it as a twin pack under NSN 6510-01-600-4628 (سیف‌گارد مدیکال).

Russell Chest Seal (Safeguard Medical)

The Russell Chest Seal held in 6 of 6 pigs with blood present, kept its grip after storage, sat in the middle of the volunteer results and tied for top composite score at 2.75. Of the seals tested for both venting and adhesion, only the Russell and the HyFin Vent avoided a failing or bottom-ranked result, and the Russell held in all six pigs in the bleeding-wound test where the HyFin Vent held in four. One catch: Safeguard's current page talks about a four-aperture vent, so ask which design you're being quoted. The NSN on Safeguard Medical's listing is 6510-99-490-5137 (سیف‌گارد مدیکال).

Bolin Chest Seal (Safeguard Medical)

The Bolin Chest Seal is the clearest trade-off in the set. It's a valve seal, and it vented through blood in 0 of 4 pigs. Adhesion is where it gets odd. On blood-soiled swine skin in 2008 it held well, after the 2016 hot or cold storage it came last of five, and on volunteers it was one of the two judged better. Bolin vs HyFin chest seal, then, comes down to what worries you more, the vent or the edge. Safeguard Medical lists it under NSN 6510-01-549-0939 (سیف‌گارد مدیکال).

FoxSeal, Beacon and other seals

FoxSeal is sold by Safeguard Medical (سیف‌گارد مدیکال) and Beacon by TacMed Solutions (TacMed Solutions). We searched PubMed in October 2026 and found no published comparison that includes either one, and none of the comparisons we found included Hyphen or an unbranded generic seal. Safeguard lists FoxSeal as a non-vented twin pack, and Beacon comes in vented and non-vented versions. Paquette's review makes the wider point: not every chest seal has been tested, and the studies it found didn't test the same seals. Treat that as a gap in what's published, as of our October 2026 search, and ask the supplier what venting and adhesion data exist for the version on offer.

Which seals go on the shortlist? Start from the failure you picked in the trade-off section. If blood at the vent is the bigger worry, the Sentinel and the Russell held in every animal in the bleeding-wound test. If the seal has to stay on through sweat, hair and long wear, the SAM with valve and the Bolin came loose least often on volunteers, though their edge over the other four seals in the main group wasn't statistically significant. If you want a seal the review never scored as failing on either variable, the Russell and the HyFin Vent tied on the review's composite at 2.75, and the Russell held in 6 of 6 pigs to the HyFin Vent's 4 of 6. None of that names a winner. The tests were small, the papers don't say which of today's models they match, and the vented HALO, FoxSeal and Beacon have no published comparison we could find, so the open question for every name on the list is which version the evidence covers.

Choosing by setting

A soldier's kit, an ambulance and a school's bleeding-control station don't need the same seal, so the best tactical chest seal could be the wrong buy for the other two. Start from where the seal will ride, then look for the study whose test conditions look most like that place. The table below pairs common settings with the evidence that fits them.

Which test to look at for each setting

The pairing is our reading of the evidence. No study tested seals setting by setting. Sources as listed in each row.

Military and law enforcement kits face the blood-and-delay risk most, so venting data carries the most weight there, and the non-valve designs did better in the bleeding-wound test. Vehicles and patrol bags add heat and cold, which is where Arnaud's storage results come in. Police IFAKs ride on a belt or in a cruiser for a whole shift, so they pick up the heat and cold and the sweat, and both adhesion tests apply to them.

Civilian guidance is softer on venting. For civilian EMS, NAEMSP says clinicians may consider a vented seal for a patient who is breathing on their own, and it says chest seals may be harmful for patients on positive-pressure ventilation and aren't recommended there. That's from the NAEMSP position statement of 2024, written for US emergency medical services. Kuhlwilm's review found that two of the four civilian-oriented guidelines it compared didn't prefer vented seals. The same 2021 review said chest seals with flutter valves seemed to be inferior. If you supply an ambulance service, the medical director's protocol decides, and the seal choice follows it.

Kit space and wound count matter in every setting. Twin packs make sense for an IFAK: one seal for the entry wound, a second for the exit. Stocking an individual first aid kit (IFAK)? Hold a sealed pack against the pouch before you place the order.

Getting the seal on is only step one. If tension builds under it, TCCC says to burp or remove the dressing, or to use تخلیه فشار با سوزن, which isn't covered here. Put the setting in writing on the purchase requirement; whoever reorders next year will want to know why you picked this seal.

What to put in the RFQ

A request for "your best chest seal" gets you quotes you can't compare. Put the setting, the exact version, the NSN where it applies, the labeled shelf life and storage range, the pack format and a trainer line into the request, and ask about a second source. Here are the lines to paste in.

• Say where the seals will be used and which failure worries you more, a vent that clogs or an edge that peels up.
• Spell out vented or non-vented, valve or channel, single or twin pack.
• Which study tested this exact version? Ask for the blood-challenge and adhesion data behind it.
• Government buyer? Get the NSN and match it to the maker's own listing (North American Rescue, for one, shows the HyFin chest seal NSN for each version).
• Order duty seals and trainers as separate lines, and get the labeled shelf life for each.
• Ask what storage range that shelf life assumes. Expiry printed on every pouch?
• Work out the price per seal, since listings mix singles, twin packs and cases of ten.

A supplier who can't fill in the version or shelf-life line has told you something already, before any samples ship.

Seals can sit in kits for years, so shelf life gets its own line. SAM Medical and TacMed Solutions label their SAM and HALO seals with a 6-year shelf life on their product pages, checked 13 October 2026 (SAM Medical; TacMed Solutions). Other makers' pages we captured didn't state one, so ask. And keep in mind that a labeled shelf life is a maker's statement. It isn't a test result.

Supply continuity is the quiet risk. Safeguard Medical sells Sentinel, Russell, Bolin and FoxSeal, so ask any supplier where a second source would come from. TacMed Solutions carries both HALO and Beacon. If one company holds three of the seals you shortlisted, a single backorder could empty your options at once.

Most published chest seal results don't say which version was tested. Put the version on the order and ask the maker which evidence covers it.

— Rusun TacMed product team

We make chest seals, so we have a stake in this, which is why every study here is linked. With your RFQ lines written, hold our vented and non-vented chest seals up against them, or request samples and a quote and paste the lines into the form.

سوالات متداول

Can you fold a chest seal?

Check the maker's instructions for the seal you carry. TacMed Solutions says its HALO Vent retains effectiveness when folded or crushed. North American Rescue went the other way with the HyFin Vent Compact, packing it about 25% smaller than the standard HyFin Vent so it fits a kit without folding.

Are Rhino Rescue chest seals good?

We can't say, and we found no published research that can. We searched PubMed in October 2026 and found no study that compares Rhino Rescue seals with others. The comparisons we found cover HyFin, HALO, SAM, Sentinel, Russell, Bolin, Asherman, Fast Breathe and the H&H Wound Seal Kit, in versions the papers don't match to today's models. Before you stock any seal outside that list, ask the supplier for blood-challenge and adhesion data on the exact version quoted.

چرا این را نوشتیم

Rusun TacMed makes chest seals and supplies distributors, agencies and kit builders. The pages ranking for "best chest seals" mostly list brands from maker copy; none of the 16 we checked put the venting and adhesion results side by side or tied them to product versions. Nothing here comes from our own testing, and our own seal isn't ranked. Every figure is from the linked studies and the makers' pages, and the page stops where they stop. Reviewed by Jason, who reviews every article we publish; this is an editorial and source check, not a clinical review.

Ask us for samples and written answers

On our quote form, choose Chest Trauma under TCCC Medical Categories of Interest. In the requirements box, tell us the setting, the failure you're designing against, vented or non-vented, and the pack format; in Estimated Quantity, split duty seals from trainers. You'll get a quote, samples and written answers on version, storage and labeled shelf life. Request chest seal samples →

Related articles

1. What Is a Chest Seal? What It Does and How to Apply One: what a chest seal does, how to apply one, and the studies behind it.
2. Vented vs Non-Vented Chest Seal: Which to Stock and Why: the category choice to settle before comparing brands.
3. Occlusive Dressing for Chest Wounds: Seal vs 3-Sided: purpose-made seals compared with improvised and three-sided dressings.
4. Needle Decompression vs Chest Tube: Field Kit Comparison: what comes next when tension builds under a seal.

مراجع

1. Do vented chest seals differ in efficacy? An experimental evaluation using a swine hemopneumothorax model. Kheirabadi BS et al. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 83(1):182-9, 2017.
2. Vented chest seals for prevention of tension pneumothorax in a communicating pneumothorax. Kotora JG Jr et al. Journal of Emergency Medicine 45(5):686-94, 2013.
3. Vented versus unvented chest seals for treatment of pneumothorax and prevention of tension pneumothorax in a swine model. Kheirabadi BS et al. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 75(1):150-6, 2013.
4. Comparison of Novel Chest Seal Designs to Commercially Available Chest Seals at Relevant Physiological Pressures. Wells N, Aho JM. Journal of Special Operations Medicine 25(1):17-22, 2025.
5. Adherence evaluation of vented chest seals in a swine skin model. Arnaud F et al. Injury 47(10):2097-104, 2016.
6. Evaluation of chest seal performance in a swine model: comparison of Asherman vs. Bolin seal. Arnaud F et al. Injury 39(9):1082-8, 2008.
7. Efficacy of Commercial Chest Seal Adherence and Tension Pneumothorax Prevention: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies. Paquette R et al. Journal of Special Operations Medicine 21(3):78-85, 2021.
8. The Use of Chest Seals in Treating Sucking Chest Wounds: A Comparison of Existing Evidence and Guideline Recommendations. Kuhlwilm V. Journal of Special Operations Medicine 21(1):94-101, 2021.
9. قرار دادن چسب سینه برای زخم‌های نفوذی قفسه سینه توسط نیروهای امدادی زمینی پیش‌بیمارستانی در افغانستان. Schauer SG et al. Journal of Special Operations Medicine 17(3):85-9, 2017.
10. Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) Guidelines, 1 May 2026. Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care.
11. Management of Open Pneumothorax in Tactical Combat Casualty Care: TCCC Guidelines Change 13-02. Butler FK Jr et al. Journal of Special Operations Medicine 13(3):81-6, 2013.
12. Prehospital Trauma Compendium: Traumatic Pneumothorax Care: Position Statement and Resource Document of NAEMSP. Lyng JW et al. Prehospital Emergency Care, 2024.
13. PMI Halo Chest Seal Outperforms in Independent Study. PMI press release via Newswire, 29 July 2010.
14. HyFin Vent Chest Seal. North American Rescue.
15. SAM Chest Seals. SAM Medical.
16. Sentinel Chest Seal. Safeguard Medical.
17. HALO Chest Seal - Vented. TacMed Solutions.