{"title":"Atypical gunshot injuries: A review of case reports and case series.","authors":"Alok Atreya, Bijeta Pokharel, Dipika Khadka, Prerana Basnet, Sharmila Gurung, Neelu Hirachan, Ritesh G Menezes","doi":"10.1016/j.jflm.2025.102981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Gunshot injuries are important public health concerns that contribute significantly to disability and mortality, but atypical cases remain underexplored. This review synthesizes the published literature to identify factors that experts/authors use to classify gunshot injuries as atypical, intending to deepen insights and improve forensic interpretations and clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following a scoping review framework, we searched PubMed using keywords related to the terms \"atypical,\" \"gunshot,\" and \"case report.\" We included peer-reviewed case reports and case series in English with no date restrictions. We excluded reviews, typical injury studies, animal studies, and non-English publications. Data were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet to identify patterns in injury characteristics and forensic/clinical implications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From the 390 records identified, 237 records spanning 1977-2024 were analyzed after screening. Cases were predominantly concentrated in North America and Europe. The classifications of atypical entities fall into four main categories or themes: unusual anatomical locations, aberrant wound patterns, unconventional weapons or ammunition, and unanticipated clinical presentations or complications and unique treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings challenge standard ballistic and clinical assumptions and emphasize the need for enhanced forensic tools and individualized treatment approaches in the management of such patients. This scoping review addresses a critical gap by providing forensic experts with better interpretation frameworks and clinicians with refined care strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":94078,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic and legal medicine","volume":"116 ","pages":"102981"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic and legal medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2025.102981","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and aim: Gunshot injuries are important public health concerns that contribute significantly to disability and mortality, but atypical cases remain underexplored. This review synthesizes the published literature to identify factors that experts/authors use to classify gunshot injuries as atypical, intending to deepen insights and improve forensic interpretations and clinical outcomes.
Methods: Following a scoping review framework, we searched PubMed using keywords related to the terms "atypical," "gunshot," and "case report." We included peer-reviewed case reports and case series in English with no date restrictions. We excluded reviews, typical injury studies, animal studies, and non-English publications. Data were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet to identify patterns in injury characteristics and forensic/clinical implications.
Results: From the 390 records identified, 237 records spanning 1977-2024 were analyzed after screening. Cases were predominantly concentrated in North America and Europe. The classifications of atypical entities fall into four main categories or themes: unusual anatomical locations, aberrant wound patterns, unconventional weapons or ammunition, and unanticipated clinical presentations or complications and unique treatment.
Conclusions: These findings challenge standard ballistic and clinical assumptions and emphasize the need for enhanced forensic tools and individualized treatment approaches in the management of such patients. This scoping review addresses a critical gap by providing forensic experts with better interpretation frameworks and clinicians with refined care strategies.