Traumatic penetrating head injury by crossbow projectiles: A case report and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Low-energy penetrating head injuries caused by arrows are relatively uncommon. The objective of this report is to describe a case presentation and management of self-inflicted intracranial injury using a crossbow and to provide a relevant literature review. Case Report: A 31-year-old man with a previous psychiatric history sustained a self-inflicted injury using a crossbow that he bought from a department store. The patient arrived neurologically intact at the hospital, fully awake and oriented. He was not able to verbalize due to immobilization of the jaw as well as fixation of his tongue to his hard palate secondary to the position of the arrow. The trajectory of the object showed an entry point at the floor of the oral cavity and an exit through the calvarium just off the midline. The oral and nasal cavity, along with the palate and, the skull base of the anterior cranial fossa, and the left frontal lobe, were all breached. No vascular injury was identified clinically or in imaging. The arrow was surgically removed in the operating room after establishing an elective surgical airway. The floor of the mouth, tongue, and palate was repaired next. A planned delayed cerebrospinal fluid leak repair was performed. The patient made a substantial recovery and was discharged home in good functional status. A systematic literature search was done using Medline for cases with intracranial injuries related to crossbows to review and appraise the available literature. Conclusion: A thorough assessment in a multidisciplinary trauma center and the availability of a subspecialty care team, including neurosurgery and otolaryngology, are paramount in such cases. The vascular imaging should be done before and after any planned surgical intervention. Emergent and elective surgical airway management should be considered and made available throughout the stabilization and care of the acute injury. Surgical management should be planned to remove the object with adequate exposure to facilitate visualization, removal, and the possible need for further intervention, including anticipating aerodigestive and vascular injuries on removal. Finally, access to weapons and the relation to psychiatric illness should not be overlooked, as many reported cases are self-harming in nature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".