Abstract
Purpose
As of 2007, there were estimated to be at least 750 million firearms in worldwide circulation, of which 650 million of them were owned by civilians (Weiss et al. in Severe lead toxicity attributed to bullet fragments retained in soft tissue. BMJ Case Reports, 2017). Of these, approximately 270 million are in the United States, equating to 84 guns per 100 Americans [based on 2016 population statistics (assuming the number of firearms remained stable over the intervening 9 years)] and resulting in 84 997 nonfatal injuries and 36 252 fatalities in the United States in 2015. With statistics like these, it stands to reason that victims of gunshot wounds (GSW) will be imaged by most radiologists at least once in their careers. This article seeks to increase radiologists’ knowledge of the pathophysiology of GSW and will review the mechanism of ballistic injury and relate these to commonly encountered imaging findings.
Important Points
Ballistic injuries are a combination of the direct injury caused by the bullet along its path through the tissues and the shockwave created around that path as the bullet expends its energy. CT is the gold standard in ballistic injury assessment. MRI is not contraindicated in patients with retained ballistic fragments, but should be used with caution. The number of entry/exit wound and the number of retained ballistic fragments should be an even number, or there is a missing surface wound or a missing bullet. Retained lead in joints can result in plumbism and arthropathy.
Summary
As most radiologists will encounter a ballistic injury in the course of their careers, an understanding of this unique mechanism of injury and its complications will aid in both imaging interpretation and patient care.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Recently published papers of particular interest have been highlighted as: • Of importance
Canadian firearms safety course. 5th edition. ed. 1 online resource.
• Dedini RD, et al. MRI issues for ballistic objects: information obtained at 1.5-, 3- and 7-Tesla. Spine J. 2013;13(7):815–22. This article discusses the MRI safety of ballisic debris. It is a good reference for methodology as well as to provide additional information on this topic.
Lozano JD, et al. Penetrating wounds to the Torso: evaluation with triple-contrast multidetector CT. RadioGraphics. 2013;33(2):341–59.
Dreizin D, Munera F. Multidetector CT for penetrating Torso trauma: state of the art. Radiology. 2015;277(2):338–55.
Gunn ML, et al. Current concepts in imaging evaluation of penetrating transmediastinal injury. RadioGraphics. 2014;34(7):1824–41.
Reginelli A, et al. Imaging assessment of gunshot wounds. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2015;36(1):57–67.
Daghfous A, et al. Contribution of imaging in the initial management of ballistic trauma. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2015;96(1):45–55.
• Dreizin D, et al. Penetrating diaphragmatic injury: accuracy of 64-section multidetector CT with trajectography. Radiology. 2013;268(3):729–37. Diaphragmatic injuries are a common indication for surgical intervention. This article discusses the use of trajectography in assessing for diaphragmatic injuries.
Dreizin D, et al. Penetrating colorectal injuries: diagnostic performance of multidetector CT with trajectography. Radiology. 2016;281(3):749–62.
Ramirez RM, et al. Single-contrast computed tomography for the triage of patients with penetrating torso trauma. J Trauma. 2009;67(3):583–8.
Holmes JF, et al. Performance of helical computed tomography without oral contrast for the detection of gastrointestinal injuries. Ann Emerg Med. 2004;43(1):120–8.
Chiu WC, et al. Determining the need for laparotomy in penetrating torso trauma: a prospective study using triple-contrast enhanced abdominopelvic computed tomography. J Trauma. 2001;51(5):860–8 discussion 868-9.
Shanmuganathan K, et al. Triple-contrast helical CT in penetrating torso trauma: a prospective study to determine peritoneal violation and the need for laparotomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(6):1247–56.
Munera F, et al. Gunshot wounds of abdomen: evaluation of stable patients with triple-contrast helical CT. Radiology. 2004;231(2):399–405.
• Jawad H, et al. Single-contrast CT for detecting bowel injuries in penetrating abdominopelvic trauma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018:1–5. This article discusses the omission of rectal contrast in penetrating trauma.
Mongan J, et al. Extravasated contrast material in penetrating abdominopelvic trauma: dual-contrast dual-energy CT for improved diagnosis–preliminary results in an animal model. Radiology. 2013;268(3):738–42.
Hollerman JJ, et al. Gunshot wounds: 1. Bullets, ballistics, and mechanisms of injury. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;155(4):685–90.
Wilson AJ. Gunshot injuries: what does a radiologist need to know? Radiographics. 1999;19(5):1358–68.
Amadasi A, et al. Characteristics and frequency of chipping effects in near-contact gunshot wounds. J Forensic Sci. 2017;62(3):786–90.
DiMaio VJM. Gunshot wounds: practical aspects of firearms, ballistics, and forensic techniques. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1998.
Mann M, et al. Shot pellets: an overview. Assoc Firearm Tool Mark Exam J, 1994. 26(3).
de Oliveira RM, Drumond DAF. Considerations about ballistic embolism: experience at the João XXIII Hospital. Rev Med Minas Gerais. 2014;24(4):527–34.
Miller KR, et al. The evolving management of venous bullet emboli: a case series and literature review. Injury. 2011;42(5):441–6.
Greaves N. Gunshot bullet embolus with pellet migration from the left brachiocephalic vein to the right ventricle: a case report. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2010;18:36.
Aoun T, Amine F, Ziad K. Femoral artery embolization of a thoracic stray bullet. J Vasc Surg Cases Innov Tech. 2017;3(3):123–5.
Wilkins T, Rosenkranz ER, Nguyen D. Venous bullet embolus to the left pulmonary artery. J Card Surg. 2016;31(8):523–5.
Landim RM, Evelyn Soares Filho AW, Cardoso DL. Femoral artery embolism of bullet after thoracic gunshot wound. J Vasc Surg Cases Innov Tech. 2017;3(3):186–7.
Huang J, et al. Popliteal artery embolism of bullet after abdominal gunshot wound. Radiol Case Rep. 2016;11(4):282–6.
Nolan T, et al. Bullet embolization: multidisciplinary approach by interventional radiology and surgery. Semin Interv Radiol. 2012;29(3):192–6.
Sclafani SJ, Vuletin JC, Twersky J. Lead arthropathy: arthritis caused by retained intra-articular bullets. Radiology. 1985;156(2):299–302.
Fernandes JL, et al. Lead arthropathy: radiographic, CT and MRI findings. Skelet Radiol. 2007;36(7):647–57.
McAninch SA, et al. Bullet fragment-induced lead arthropathy with subsequent fracture and elevated blood lead levels. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2017;30(1):88–91.
Ramji Z, Laflamme M. Ankle lead arthropathy and systemic lead toxicity secondary to a gunshot wound after 49 years: a case report. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017;56(3):648–52.
Weiss D, et al. Severe lead toxicity attributed to bullet fragments retained in soft tissue. BMJ Case Reports; 2017. 2017.
Weiss D, et al. Elevated blood lead levels associated with retained bullet fragments—United States, 2003-2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(5):130–3.
Abraham A, et al. Pain from a bullet lingers on: an uncommon case of lead toxicity. Case Rep Gastroenterol. 2012;6(2):243–8.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Monique Christakis and Dr. Joel Rubenstein as well as the executive of the Toronto Revolver Club for their support and assistance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Noah Ditkofsky, Khaled Y. Elbanna, Jason Robins, Ismail Tawakol Ali, Michael O’Keeffe, and Ferco H. Berger each declare no potential conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
This article is part of the Topical collection on Emergency Radiology.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Head and cervical spine protocol | |
---|---|
Oral contrast | None |
IV contrast | None |
Start location | Series (1) Foramen magnum Series (2) Foramen magnum |
End location | Series (1) Vertex Series (2) T2 |
Interval | Series (1a) Axial 2.5 mm (for post fossa) then Axial 5 mm (1b) Axial 2.5 mm Series (2a) Helical 0.635 mm × 0.625 mm (2b) Helical 2.5 mm × 1.25 mm |
SFOV | Series (1) Head Series (2) Small Body |
DFOV | 25 cm |
Detector width | 20 mm |
kV | Series (1)140 kVp from foramen magnum to petrous ridge 120 kVp from petrous ridge to vertex Series (2) 140 kVp |
mA | Series (1)335 mA from posterior arch of C1 to petrous ridge 300 from petrous ridge to vertex Series (2) auto mA |
Tube rotation | Series (1) 1.0 s Series (2) 0.8 s |
Scan delay | None |
Algorithm | Standard and bone |
Reformats: | Coronal and Sagittal 2.0 mm × 1.0 mm c-spine on Bone and Standard |
Chest, abdomen and pelvis protocol | |
---|---|
Oral contrast | None |
IV contrast | 100cc @ 3.0 cc/s |
Start location | Series (1a) Supraclavicular fossa Recon (2a) Lung Apex Series (1b) Dome of diaphragm |
End location | Series (1a) mid kidney Recon (2a) Costal phrenic angles Series (1b) Ischial tuberosities |
Interval | Series (1a) 0.625 mm × 0.625 mm Recon (2a) 2.5 mm × 1.25 mm Series (1b) 0.625 mm × 0.625 mm |
SFOV | Large |
DFOV | Series (1a) (1c) and (2) Smallest possible DFOV that will include skin all the way around at largest part of area being scanned Series (1b) Smallest DFOV that includes everything inside ribs |
Detector width | 40 mm |
kV | 120 |
mA | Auto |
Tube rotation | 0.6 sec |
Scan delay | Series (1) smart prep Series (2) 70 seconds |
Algorithm | Series (1a) Standard recon (2) lung Series 1b) Standard |
Reformats | Series (1a) Axial (2.5 mm × 1.2), Coronal (3 × 3) and Sagittal (3 × 3), Oblique (2 × 1) through the Aortic Arch Series 1a) Axial (2.5 mm × 1.2), Coronal (3 × 3) and Sagittal (3 × 3) |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ditkofsky, N., Elbanna, K.Y., Robins, J. et al. Ballistic Injury Imaging: The Basics. Curr Radiol Rep 6, 45 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-018-0304-6
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-018-0304-6