ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2026
Intravascular bullet embolization: a multicenter three-case series and literature review.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 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
Introduction and importance: Intravascular bullet embolization (IBE) is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication of penetrating trauma. It may present as either arterial or venous embolization and is most commonly associated with low-velocity, small-caliber gunshot wounds (GSWs). Diagnosis is often challenging, and management remains controversial because of the limited evidence available to guide therapeutic decision-making. Case presentation: We present a multicenter case series of three patients with venous bullet embolization treated using a hybrid endovascular-surgical approach. In all three cases, the projectile was successfully captured using endovascular techniques; however, definitive retrieval required a venotomy because of the projectile's diameter. All three patients had favorable clinical outcomes, with no procedure-related complications and complete functional recovery during follow-up. Clinical discussion: IBE should be suspected when the number of entry and exit wounds is inconsistent with the expected ballistic trajectory. Imaging studies play a pivotal role in confirming the diagnosis and in planning the therapeutic strategy. Although management remains controversial and should be individualized, advances in endovascular techniques have expanded the minimally invasive options for foreign-body retrieval. Our case series illustrates that although endovascular capture of the projectile may be technically feasible, definitive retrieval may still require a venotomy when the projectile's diameter precludes endovascular removal. Conclusion: IBE is a rare complication of penetrating trauma that requires a high index of clinical suspicion for timely diagnosis. When technically feasible and supported by appropriate expertise and resources, an endovascular approach may be considered as an initial retrieval strategy. Management should be individualized according to the type of embolization, projectile characteristics, anatomical location, the patient's clinical condition, and the anticipated risk-benefit balance of intervention.
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.