Atypical gunshot injuries: A review of case reports and case series.

Alok Atreya, Bijeta Pokharel, Dipika Khadka, Prerana Basnet, Sharmila Gurung, Neelu Hirachan, Ritesh G Menezes
{"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.

非典型枪伤:病例报告和病例系列回顾。
背景和目的:枪伤是造成残疾和死亡的重要公共卫生问题,但非典型病例仍未得到充分研究。本综述综合了已发表的文献,以确定专家/作者用于将枪伤分类为非典型的因素,旨在加深见解,改善法医解释和临床结果。方法:根据范围审查框架,我们使用与“非典型”、“枪击”和“病例报告”相关的关键词搜索PubMed。我们纳入了同行评议的病例报告和英文病例系列,没有日期限制。我们排除了综述、典型损伤研究、动物研究和非英语出版物。数据被提取到Excel电子表格中,以确定损伤特征和法医/临床意义的模式。结果:从鉴定的390份记录中,筛选后分析了1977-2024年期间的237份记录。病例主要集中在北美和欧洲。非典型实体的分类分为四个主要类别或主题:不寻常的解剖位置,异常的伤口模式,非常规的武器或弹药,意外的临床表现或并发症和独特的治疗。结论:这些发现挑战了标准的弹道和临床假设,并强调需要加强法医工具和个性化治疗方法来管理这类患者。这一范围审查通过为法医专家提供更好的解释框架和临床医生提供完善的护理策略,解决了一个关键的差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信