Evaluation of Treatment Results in Orthopaedic Firearm İnjuries: Review of 52 Cases
Öz
Background/Aims: The prevalence of firearm-related fractures (FAF) among civilians has increased in many countries. The management of these injuries is challenging for physicians. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients treated for FAF.
Methods: The study included adults treated in an orthopaedic clinic for fractures caused by civilian gunshot wounds to the large bones of the extremities between 2015 and 2020. The medical records of the patients were retrospectively reviewed in the two-centre study. Age, gender, fracture bone name, fracture type, fracture type, type of fracture, type of treatment, time to union, presence of permanent sequelae, presence of deep surface infection, presence of vascular injury, presence of nerve injury, presence of nonuniun-malunion, time to full function and follow-up period were analysed.
Results: This study was performed in 52 cases with a mean age of 43 years. Fifty patients were male, and two were female. There were 22 tibia, 20 femur, 4 humerus, 4 ulna, and 2 radius fractures. In total, 11 patients were treated with conservative treatment, 15 patients with plate screws, 9 patients with intramedullary nails and 17 patients with external fixators. Permanent sequelae occurred in 13 (25%) patients following treatment. Seven (13.5%) infections emerged during the treatment phase of which four (7.7%) were superficial and three (5.8%) were deep infections. In cases treated with external fixator, infection occurred in five (29.4%) patients, four of them being superficial infections. The mean follow-up period for all patients was 37.5 (25-60) months. While the mean time to union was 6.6 (1.5-15) months in all patients, this time was shorter with a mean of 2.5 months in patients treated with conservative treatment(p<0.001).
Conclusions: From admission to the emergency department to the finalisation of treatment, FAFs are challenging forensic cases for physicians. In addition to fractures, they may cause vascular, nerve and soft tissue injuries and may leave a high rate of sequelae. In addition to modern surgical techniques, conservative treatment is successfully used in appropriate cases.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- 1. Davies MJ, Wells C, Squires PA, et al. Civilian firearm injury and death in England and Wales. Emerg Med J. 2012;29(1):10–4.
- 2. Bäckman PB, Riddez L, Adamsson L, WahlgrenCM: Epidemiology of firearm injuries in a Scandinavian trauma center. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2020 Jun;46(3):641-647.
- 3. Muqango S, Kauta N, Held M, Mazibuko T, Keel MJB, Laubscher M, Ahmad SS: Gunshot injuries to the lower extremities: Issues, controversies and algorithm of management. Injury, Volume 51, Issue 7, July 2020, Pages 1426-1431.
- 4. Baum GR, Baum JT, Hayward D, MacKay BJ. Gunshot Wounds: Ballistics, Pathology, and Treatment Recommendations, with a Focus on Retained Bullets. Orthopedic Research and Reviews 2022:14 293–317.
- 5. Bartlett CS, Helfet DL, Hausman MR, Strauss E. Ballistics and gunshot wounds: effects on musculoskeletal tissues. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000;8(1):21–36.
- 6. Stefanopoulos PK, Pinialidis DE, Hadjigeorgiou GF, Filippakis KN. Wound ballistics 101: the mechanisms of soft tissue wounding by bullets. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2017;43(5):579–586.
- 7. Dougherty PJ, Vaidya R, Silverton CD, et al. Joint and long-bone gunshot injuries. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91(4):980–97.
- 8. Gustilo RB, Anderson JT. Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty-fve open fractures of long bones: retrospective and prospective analyses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976;58:453–8.
- 9. Polat S, Balcı S, Ergin OA, Esma A, Şen Ç, Kılıçoğlu Ö. A comparison of external fixation and locked intramedullary nailing in the treatment of femoral diaphysis fractures from gunshot injuries. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg (2018) 44:451–455.
- 10. Grosse Perdekamp M, Kneubuehl BP, Serr A, Vennemann B, Pollak S. Gunshot-related transport of micro-organisms from the skin of the entrance region into the bullet path. Int J Legal Med. 2006;120(5):257–264.