İnhalasyon Yaralanması Olgularının Adli Süreçte Klinik ve Medikolegal Açıdan Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, adli tıbbi değerlendirmeye yönlendirilen inhalasyon maruziyeti olgularının demografik, klinik ve medikolegal özelliklerinin retrospektif olarak değerlendirilmesi amaçlandı. Ayrıca klinik bulgular ve medikolegal sonuçların olay türü ve maruziyet paternine göre dağılımı incelendi. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu retrospektif, tek merkezli çalışmaya 2015–2025 yılları arasında belgelenmiş inhalasyon maruziyeti bulunan 47 adli olgu dahil edildi. Demografik, klinik ve medikolegal veriler retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Olguların yaş ortalaması 30,7±14,5 yıl olup %59,6’sı erkekti. En sık olay türü iş kazası (%38,3), en sık maruziyet paterni ise biber gazıydı (%36,2). Olguların %78,7’si ilk değerlendirme sonrası taburcu edilirken %14,9’u yoğun bakım ünitesine yatırıldı. Hastane yönetimi, eşlik eden fiziksel yaralanma, radyolojik değerlendirme ve laboratuvar bulguları olay türü ve maruziyet paternine göre anlamlı farklılık gösterdi. Sonuç: Adli sürece yansıyan inhalasyon maruziyeti olguları geniş bir klinik ve medikolegal spektrum göstermektedir. Klinik bulguların olay türü ve maruziyet paternine göre değişmesi, maruziyet özellikleri, klinik bulgular ve medikolegal kriterlerin birlikte değerlendirilmesini desteklemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• inhalasyon hasarı
• adli tıp
• biber gazı
• duman inhalasyonu

Destekleyen Kurum

yok

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma Mersin Şehir Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Girişimsel Olmayan Klinik Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu tarafından onaylanmıştır (karar tarihi: 25.02.2026; karar sayısı: 137). Çalışma, araştırma ve yayın etiği ilkelerine ve Helsinki Bildirgesi’ne uygun olarak yürütülmüştür.

Teşekkür

Yazarlar, bu retrospektif çalışmaya dahil edilen bazı olguların adli tıbbi dokümantasyonuna katkılarından dolayı Mersin Şehir Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Adli Tıp Uzmanı Dr. Gülşin Canoğulları Kul’a teşekkür eder.

Clinical and Medicolegal Evaluation of Inhalation Injury Cases in the Forensic Process

Öz

Aim: This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the demographic, clinical, and medicolegal characteristics of inhalational exposure cases referred for forensic medical evaluation. It also aimed to examine the distribution of selected clinical findings and medicolegal outcomes according to event type and exposure pattern. Materials and Methods: This retrospective single-center study included 47 forensic cases with documented inhalational exposure between 2015 and 2025. Data were obtained through retrospective review of forensic reports and available medical records. Cases were assessed in terms of age, sex, event type, exposure pattern, degree of accompanying physical injury, radiological assessment, laboratory findings, hospitalization status, operation status, simple medical intervention status, and life-threatening condition. Appropriate statistical tests were used for group comparisons, and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The mean age was 30.7±14.5 years and 59.6% were male. Occupational accidents were the most common event type (38.3%), and pepper spray was the most common exposure pattern (36.2%). Most cases were discharged after initial evaluation (78.7%), while 14.9% required intensive care. Findings differed significantly according to event type and exposure pattern, particularly for hospital management, accompanying physical injury, radiological assessment, and laboratory findings. Conclusion: Inhalational exposure cases show a broad clinical and medicolegal spectrum. Clinical findings varied according to event type and exposure pattern, supporting integrated assessment of exposure characteristics, clinical findings, and medicolegal criteria.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Inhalation injury
• forensic medicine
• pepper spray
• smoke inhalation

Destekleyen Kurum

None

Etik Beyan

This retrospective study was approved by the Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Mersin City Training and Research Hospital (decision date: 25.02.2026; decision number: 137). The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of research and publication ethics and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Teşekkür

The authors would like to thank Dr. Gülşin Canoğulları Kul, Forensic Medicine Specialist at Mersin City Training and Research Hospital, for her contribution to the medico-legal documentation of some of the cases included in this retrospective study.

Kaynakça

1. Walker PF, Buehner MF, Wood LA, et al. Diagnosis and management of inhalation injury: an updated review. Crit Care. 2015;19:351. doi:10.1186/s13054-015-1077-4.
2. Galeiras R. Smoke inhalation injury: a narrative review. Mediastinum. 2021;5:16. doi:10.21037/med-21-7.
3. Jones SW, Williams FN, Cairns BA, Cartotto R. Inhalation injury: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Clin Plast Surg. 2017;44(3):505-511. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2017.02.009.
4. Anseeuw K, Delvau N, Burillo-Putze G, et al. Cyanide poisoning by fire smoke inhalation: a European expert consensus. Eur J Emerg Med. 2013;20(1):2-9. doi:10.1097/ MEJ.0b013e328357170b.
5. Haar RJ, Iacopino V, Ranadive N, Dandu M, Weiser SD. Health impacts of chemical irritants used for crowd control: a systematic review of the injuries and deaths caused by tear gas and pepper spray. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):831. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4814-6.
6. Forrester MB, Holloway C. Characteristics of pepper spray- related injuries reported to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System during 2000-2020. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2022;60(3):348-355. doi:10.1080/15563650.2021.1966028.
7. Kearney T, Hiatt P, Birdsall E, Smollin C. Pepper spray injury severity: ten-year case experience of a poison control system. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014;18(3):381-386. doi:10.3109/10903 127.2014.891063.
8. Tanizaki S. Assessing inhalation injury in the emergency room. Open Access Emerg Med. 2015;7:31-37. doi:10.2147/OAEM. S74580.

9. Dyamenahalli K, Garg G, Shupp JW, et al. Inhalation injury: unmet clinical needs and future research. J Burn Care Res. 2019;40(5):570-584. doi:10.1093/jbcr/irz055.
10. Reid A, Ha JF. Inhalational injury and the larynx: a review. Burns. 2019;45(6):1266-1274. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2018.10.025.
11. Giurgiu RA, Bordeanu-Diaconescu EM, Grosu-Bularda A, et al. Comprehensive review of clinical presentation, treatment, and prognostic factors of airway burns. J Med Life. 2025;18(5):405- 410. doi:10.25122/jml-2025-0081.
12. Savioli G, Gri N, Ceresa IF, et al. Carbon monoxide poisoning: from occupational health to emergency medicine. J Clin Med. 2024;13(9):2466. doi:10.3390/jcm13092466.
13. Cho DH, Thom SR, Son JW, et al. Practical recommendations for the evaluation and management of cardiac injury due to carbon monoxide poisoning. JACC Heart Fail. 2024;12(8):1343-1352. doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2024.01.001.
14. Huerta PA, Albornoz AM, Abufhele M, et al. Tear gas exposure and its association with respiratory emergencies in infants and older adults during the social uprising of 2019 in Chile: an observational, longitudinal, repeated measures study. BMJ Open. 2023;13(6):e067548. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067548.
15. Yeung MF, Tang WY. Clinicopathological effects of pepper (oleoresin capsicum) spray. Hong Kong Med J. 2015;21(6):542- 552. doi:10.12809/hkmj154691.
16. Schep LJ, Slaughter RJ, McBride DI. Riot control agents: the tear gases CN, CS and OC-a medical review. J R Army Med Corps. 2015;161(2):94-99. doi:10.1136/jramc-2013-000165.
17. Zhang T, He X, Wang C, et al. Case report: mixed hydrofluoric and nitric acid mist inhalation poisoning. Front Med (Lausanne). 2024;11:1342212. doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1342212.
18. Madadin M, Alqarzaie AA, Alzahrani RS, et al. Characteristics of medico-legal cases and errors in medico-legal reports at a teaching hospital in Saudi Arabia. Open Access Emerg Med. 2021;13:521-526. doi:10.2147/OAEM.S341893.
19. Aktas N, Gulacti U, Lok U, et al. Characteristics of the traumatic forensic cases admitted to emergency department and errors in the forensic report writing. Bull Emerg Trauma. 2018;6(1):64- 70. doi:10.29252/beat-060110.
20. Türk Ceza Kanunu’nda Tanımlanan Yaralama Suçlarının Adli Tıp Açısından Değerlendirilmesi Rehberi. Adli Tıp Kurumu Başkanlığı; 2019.