ReviewTrauma surgery & acute care open2024
Diagnostic and therapeutic considerations in cases of civilian intravascular ballistic embolism: a review of case reports.
Review in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intravascular bullet embolization: a multicenter three-case series and literature review.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Intravascular projectile embolism from firearm injuries: How did it get there?Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- Delayed inferior vena cava-to-right ventricle bullet embolism following abdominal gunshot injury in somalia: a case report.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ballistic embolism (BE) is a rare complication of firearm injuries notoriously associated with a vexing clinical picture in the trauma bay. Unless considered early, the associated confusion can lead to needless delay in the management of the patient with a gunshot wound. Despite this known entity, there is a relative paucity of high-grade evidence regarding complications, management, and follow-up in these patients. Methods: An electronic database literature search was conducted to identify cases of acute intravascular BE in pediatric and adult civilians occurring during index hospitalization, filtered to publications during the past 10 years. Exclusion criteria included non-vascular embolization, injuries occurring in the military setting, and delayed migration defined as occurring after discharge from the index hospitalization. Results: A total of 136 cases were analyzed. Nearly all cases of BE occurred within 48 hours of presentation. Compared with venous emboli, arterial emboli were significantly more likely to be symptomatic (71% vs. 7%, p<0.001), and 43% of patients developed symptoms attributable to BE in the trauma bay. In addition, arterial emboli were significantly less likely to be managed non-invasively (19% vs. 49%, p<0.001). Open retrieval was significantly more likely to be successful compared with endovascular attempts (91% vs. 29%, p<0.001). Patients with arterial emboli were more likely to receive follow-up (52% vs. 39%) and any attempt at retrieval during the hospitalization was significantly associated with outpatient follow-up (p=0.034). All but one patient remained stable or had clinically improved symptoms after discharge. Conclusion: Consideration for BE is reasonable in any patient with new or persistent unexplained signs or symptoms, especially during the first 48 hours after a penetrating firearm injury. Although venous BE can often be safely observed, arterial BE generally necessitates urgent retrieval. Patients who are managed non-invasively may benefit from follow-up in the first year after injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.