819
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Reviews

Retained bullets and lead toxicity: a systematic review

, , , &
Pages 1176-1186 | Received 02 Mar 2022, Accepted 18 Aug 2022, Published online: 08 Sep 2022
 

Abstract

Introduction

Lead toxicity secondary to retained bullet(s) (RB) after a penetrating gunshot wound is a rare but likely underdiagnosed condition, given the substantial number of firearm injuries in the United States. There is currently no consensus on the indications for surveillance, chelation, or surgical intervention.

Objective

The purpose of our review is to summarize the literature on systemic lead toxicity secondary to RBs to help guide clinicians in the management of these patients.

Methodology

The primary literature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane, and CENTRAL using the following MESH terms: “chelation” and “lead poisoning” or “lead toxicity” or “lead” and “bullet” or “missile” or “gunshot”, or “bullet”.

Results

The search identified 1,082 articles. After exclusions, a total of 142 articles were included in our final review, the majority of which were case reports. Several factors appear to increase the risk of developing lead toxicity including the location of the RB, the presence of a fracture or recent trauma, number of fragments, hypermetabolic states, and bullet retention duration. Particularly, RBs located within a body fluid compartment like an intra-articular space appear to be at a substantially higher risk of developing lead toxicity. Even though patients with lead toxicity from RBs will have similar symptoms to patients with lead toxicity from other sources, the diagnosis of lead poisoning may occur months or years after a gunshot wound. Symptomatic patients with high blood lead levels (BLLs) tended to improve with a combination of chelation and surgical removal of RBs.

Conclusions

We suggest surveillance with serial BLLs should be performed. Patients with intra-articular RBs appear to be at increased risk of lead toxicity and if possible, early surgical removal of the RBs is warranted, especially given that signs of toxicity are vague, and patients may not have access to follow-up. Long-term chelation should not be used as a surgical alternative and management should be multidisciplinary.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the assistance with the literature search strategy provided by John Cyrus.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 1,501.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.