Interaction of penetrating missiles with tissues: Some common misapprehensions and implications for wound management

It is apparent from review of published papers and books that misunderstanding and confusion exists in the minds of many authors describing the interaction of penetrating missiles with tissues. These misapprehensions may influence the management of wounds by suggesting didactic approaches based upon a preconceived notion of the nature and severity of the wound for different types of projectiles. This review considers the biophysics of penetrating missile wounds, highlights some of the more common misconceptions and seeks to reconcile the conflicting and confusing management doctrines that are promulgated in the literature-differences that arise not only from two scenarios, peace and war, but also from misapprehensions of the wounding process. Wounds of war and of peacetime differ both in the nature of the wound and in the propensity for wound infection. Additionally, the limitations imposed by war dictate the type of management that may be practised and result in procedures that would be considered inappropriate by some in civilian clinical practice. Many of the procedures described in civilian peacetime settings, such as reliance on antibiotics alone for the control of infection in penetrating wounds, or minimal excision and debridement, can yield good results but would herald disaster if transposed to a war setting.