Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Ballistic Injury Imaging: The Basics

  • Emergency Radiology (J Yu, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Radiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Recently published papers of particular interest have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Canadian firearms safety course. 5th edition. ed. 1 online resource.

  2. • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lozano JD, et al. Penetrating wounds to the Torso: evaluation with triple-contrast multidetector CT. RadioGraphics. 2013;33(2):341–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dreizin D, Munera F. Multidetector CT for penetrating Torso trauma: state of the art. Radiology. 2015;277(2):338–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gunn ML, et al. Current concepts in imaging evaluation of penetrating transmediastinal injury. RadioGraphics. 2014;34(7):1824–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Reginelli A, et al. Imaging assessment of gunshot wounds. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2015;36(1):57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Daghfous A, et al. Contribution of imaging in the initial management of ballistic trauma. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2015;96(1):45–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dreizin D, et al. Penetrating colorectal injuries: diagnostic performance of multidetector CT with trajectography. Radiology. 2016;281(3):749–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ramirez RM, et al. Single-contrast computed tomography for the triage of patients with penetrating torso trauma. J Trauma. 2009;67(3):583–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Munera F, et al. Gunshot wounds of abdomen: evaluation of stable patients with triple-contrast helical CT. Radiology. 2004;231(2):399–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. • 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.

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hollerman JJ, et al. Gunshot wounds: 1. Bullets, ballistics, and mechanisms of injury. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;155(4):685–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wilson AJ. Gunshot injuries: what does a radiologist need to know? Radiographics. 1999;19(5):1358–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Amadasi A, et al. Characteristics and frequency of chipping effects in near-contact gunshot wounds. J Forensic Sci. 2017;62(3):786–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. DiMaio VJM. Gunshot wounds: practical aspects of firearms, ballistics, and forensic techniques. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1998.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Mann M, et al. Shot pellets: an overview. Assoc Firearm Tool Mark Exam J, 1994. 26(3).

  22. de Oliveira RM, Drumond DAF. Considerations about ballistic embolism: experience at the João XXIII Hospital. Rev Med Minas Gerais. 2014;24(4):527–34.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Miller KR, et al. The evolving management of venous bullet emboli: a case series and literature review. Injury. 2011;42(5):441–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilkins T, Rosenkranz ER, Nguyen D. Venous bullet embolus to the left pulmonary artery. J Card Surg. 2016;31(8):523–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Huang J, et al. Popliteal artery embolism of bullet after abdominal gunshot wound. Radiol Case Rep. 2016;11(4):282–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nolan T, et al. Bullet embolization: multidisciplinary approach by interventional radiology and surgery. Semin Interv Radiol. 2012;29(3):192–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sclafani SJ, Vuletin JC, Twersky J. Lead arthropathy: arthritis caused by retained intra-articular bullets. Radiology. 1985;156(2):299–302.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Fernandes JL, et al. Lead arthropathy: radiographic, CT and MRI findings. Skelet Radiol. 2007;36(7):647–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Weiss D, et al. Severe lead toxicity attributed to bullet fragments retained in soft tissue. BMJ Case Reports; 2017. 2017.

  35. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Abraham A, et al. Pain from a bullet lingers on: an uncommon case of lead toxicity. Case Rep Gastroenterol. 2012;6(2):243–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noah Ditkofsky.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-018-0304-6

Keywords

Navigation