ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2026
Abdominal gunshot wounds: evaluating the role of computed tomography in surgical timing and decision-making.
Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbdominal gunshot wounds contribute significantly to trauma-related morbidity and mortality. Computed tomog-raphy (CT) can provide valuable diagnostic information but may potentially delay definitive treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the role of abdominal CT in surgical decision-making and timing among patients with abdominal gunshot injuries.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients with abdominal gunshot wounds treated at a tertiary university hospital between January 2013 and January 2023. Collected data included demographic characteristics, physiological parameters, trauma scores, CT find-ings, time intervals (from admission to CT and to surgery), and clinical outcomes. Patients were classified as hemodynamically stable or unstable based on admission parameters and their response to resuscitation. The two groups were compared.
resultsA total of 74 patients were included (94.5% male; median age, 32 years). Of these, 47 (63.5%) were hemodynamically stable at presentation, while 27 (36.5%) were unstable. Abdominal CT was performed in 67 patients (90.5%), with a median time of 28 minutes from admission. The median time to CT was similar between stable (28 minutes) and unstable (30 minutes) patients (p=0.934). Based on CT findings, nonoperative management was feasible in 10 patients (13.5%). Among the unstable group, CT was performed in 7 of 11 nonresponders, of whom six (54.5%) died. Among patients who underwent surgery, the mean time to operation was significantly shorter in unstable patients compared to stable patients (60.4±36.7 vs. 93.2±76.6 minut±es; p=0.034). The perioperative mortality rate was 9.3%, with all deaths occurring in hemodynamically unstable nonresponders.
conclusionAbdominal CT can aid surgical planning without causing significant delays in definitive treatment, even in initially unstable patients who respond to resuscitation. CT findings may support nonoperative management in selected cases and guide targeted surgical interventions in patients requiring operative treatment. However, these findings apply to carefully selected patients and should be interpreted cautiously, as this study does not establish the safety of CT in unselected hemodynamically unstable patients. The proximity of the CT scanner to the resuscitation area facilitated rapid imaging; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to institutions with remotely located CT facilities.
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.