To detect the bullet, radiography of whole body was obtained. Since there was a bullet-like opacity in the pelvic radiography, an abdominopelvic CT with contrast was taken which demonstrated the bullet next to the bladder, close to the internal iliac vascular bundle (Figure 2). There was no evidence of diaphragmatic, or intraabdominal/pelvic organ injury, and no fluid or free-air in either abdomen or pelvis. Venography and arteriography revealed that the bullet was not located inside any vascular structure (Figure 3). Written informed consent was obtained from the patient.
Since the bullet did not cause any pain, motor function defect of leg, or infection, and there was no injury to the organs neighboring the bullet, no attempt was made to take it out. The recovery of the patient was uneventful. The chest tube was taken and the patient was discharged on the third day. However, the patient was lost to follow-up after a month.
In our case, we firstly considered a vascular embolism since the bullet was located nearby internal iliac vessels; however, arteriography and venography ruled out this possibility. It is unclear how the bullet reached the retroperitoneal space. Several theories may give a possible explanation for such a migration. First, the bullet may reach the retoperitoneum by directly penetrating the diaphragm. But the chest and abdominopelvic CT demonstrated no evidence of diaphragmatic, intraabdominal or pelvic injury. Another theory is based on a study which demonstrated that there existed several pathways between the mediastinum and the retroperitoneal space across the esophageal hiatus, and via the inferior vena caval hiatus.[3] But the CT of the patient demonstrated neither mediastinal injury nor suspicion for the bullet to travel within the mediastinum. A final theory is based on a cadaver study which identified a diaphragm-free triangular area named Bochdalek’s triangle in 90.1% of the cadavers, and proposed that this triangle comprising of 622.8 mm2 may allow communication between the pleural cavity and the retroperitoneal space.[4] Habal et al.[5] reported a case in which a titanium rod, used for stabilization of fracture of the first lumbar vertebrae, migrated into the left pleural space. In the thoracoscopy, the authors found the rod lying in posterior costophrenic angle without any evidence of diaphragmatic injury. It is possible that the rod migrated using the pathway described above.[4]
We think that the bullet migration to the retroperitoneum in our case may be explained by the third mechanism. Possibly, the scapula and third rib caused the bullet to lose its kinetic energy and slow down. Then, after penetrating the upper lobe, the bullet stayed in the right hemithorax, and then went deeper close to the diaphragmatic crura with the gravity effect. Finally, the physical effort the patient made while running after the attacker pushed the bullet to the retoperitoneum via a possible Bochdalek’s triangle.
There are controversies about bullet removal indications. Based on a systematic review conducted by Riehl et al.,[6] in case of asymptomatic patients, it is common to accept bullets as inert harmless metallic bodies and avoid bullet removal. Meanwhile, an asymptomatic bullet should be followed for a while, because as reported by Yenigün et al.,[7] a retained bullet in the lung may cause bronchiectasis even after more than 20 years. The bullet in our patient caused no vascular or intrapelvic/abdominal organ injury, no infection or pain, thus we did not attempt to remove it.
Bullet embolization after penetrating trauma is rare. If the number of entry wounds does not equal to that of exit wounds, or the clinical signs or symptoms and radiologic imaging do not correlate with the injury. For this reason, the possibility of bullet embolism should be considered. The removal of the bullet should be avoided in asymptomatic cases, in cases with no suspicion of visceral injury or infection, and if the bullet causes no pain or difficulty in body motion.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to
the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research
and/or authorship of this article.
1) Biswas S, Price C, Abrol S. An elusive bullet in the
gastrointestinal tract: a rare case of bullet embolism in the
gastrointestinal tract and a review of relevant literature. Case
Rep Crit Care 2014;2014:689539.
2) Krispin A, Zaitsev K, Hiss J. The elusive slug: bullet intestinal “embolism”. Forensic Sci Med pathol 2010;6:288-92.
3) Xu H, Zhang X, Christe A, Ebner L, Zhang S, Luo Z, et
al. Anatomic pathways of peripancreatic fluid draining to
mediastinum in recurrent acute pancreatitis: visible human
project and CT study. PLoS One 2013;8:62025.
4) Kawada M, Murakami G, Yajima T, Sato TJ, Mizobuchi
S, Sasaguri S. Potential foramen to allow communication
between the pleural cavity and retroperitoneal space during
laparoscopic surgery: a cadaver study of Bochdalek's triangle.
Surg Radiol Anat 2007;29:105-13.
5) Habal P, Málek V, Novotný J. Case: unusual migration of
osteosynthetic material. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove)
2005;48:49-52.