Gunshot Roentgenograms A Collection of Roentgenograms Taken in Constantinople During the Turko-Balkan War, 1912-1913, Illustrating Some Gunshot Wounds in the Turkish — Context and Discussion
Edition facts
Gunshot Roentgenograms A Collection of Roentgenograms Taken in Constantinople During the Turko-Balkan War, 1912-1913, Illustrating Some Gunshot Wounds in the Turkish — Context and Discussion can be approached with a clearer sense of reading commitment from its source measurements: 27,364 words, 1 hr 59 min estimated reading time, and 7 detected text sections.
The text analysis averages about 19.3 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Gunshot wounds,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
maller and the overlapping of larger fragments caused some shortening.
Treatment, expectant.
Gunshot Fracture of the Right Humerus, with Lodgment of the Missile.
Wound of entrance, antero-external aspect of upper third of arm.
The missile, deformed by ricochet, struck the bone with greatly reduced velocity and without sufficient energy to perforate the bone by which it was deflected slightly from its course and lodged in the arm.
This is something of the same effect that might have been caused by a shrapnel ball, under the same ballistic conditions with a normal shrapnel velocity giving about the same penetrating force.
The wound, without infection, is in the first week or two of repair, before any callus has formed.
Treatment is expectant.
Gunshot Fracture of the Left Humerus, with Lodgment of the Missile.
Wound of entrance, anterior surface of upper third of the arm.
The shadow of the missile shows by its distinct outline and normal diameter at the tip that the missile lies on the side near the plate; the shortened length of the projectile indicates that the long axis lay in an acute angle with a perpendicular to the plate.
The irregular outline of the base of the shadow and the fact of lodgment shows that the missile was deformed and that it was incidentally retarded in velocity by ricochet, so that its penetrating force was not sufficient to carry it through the arm.
The fragments of bone are large and the wound is of the same character as might have resulted from a shrapnel ball, for the normal ballistic conditions of the latter simulate the conditions that produced the wound.
The drainage tubes seen in the plate indicate infection.
The conventional treatment in such cases is drainage and other management of the infection without formal search for the projectile.
Results should be favorable.
Gunshot Fracture of the Humerus.
Wound of entrance, anterior internal aspect of middle and upper third of arm.
Wound of exit, opposite.
The missile has struck the side of the bone and pursued a course through the shaft, so that a transverse fracture, as well as the separation of several medium-sized fragments, resulted from the splitting effect of the missile.
A larger missile, i. e., a shrapnel ball, with the same striking energy could have been stopped by the bone, but a wider distribution of the same energy carried by a larger cross section would have produced larger fragments.
In this case the location of the shrapnel ball would furnish unquestioned evidence; or, if a shrapnel ball had produced this particular bone destruction, its path among the fragments would have been marked by traces of lead. Two metal fragments indicate that the lead core of the bullet was exposed.
The wound, not infected, was treated expectantly.
Result in such cases is favorable.
Gunshot Fracture of the Humerus.
The course of the missile was anteroposterior through the middle of the arm.
The ballistic conditions and lines of force applied to the bone were somewhat, if not entirely, similar to those producing the fracture shown in plate 11. The missile struck the wall of the shaft without passing through the medullary canal, but a secondary fragmentation of the two large fragments did not follow except for the breaking of the tip of the distal fragment.
There was little deformity and no infection.
Plaster dressing was applied and the slight outline of callus formation indicates the process of repair. The lack of contrast in the shadow of the bone is due to the opacity of the plaster dressing through which the Roentgen exposure was made.
Treatment in such cases is expectant.
Results should be uniformly good.
Gunshot Fracture of the Right Humerus, with Lodgment of the Missile.
Wound of entrance, about middle of the anteriorinternal aspect of the arm.
The course of the missile was from without, downward and inward to a point of lodgment above the internal condyle. The distinct outline and normal size of the base of the bullet shows it to be near the plate, with the internal condyle next to the plate in the exposure.
The bullet mushroomed when it struck the bone with a “soft nose,” in which the lead was not protected by a tough metal jacket. It may have been dum-dummed; it is remotely possible that the nose of the jacket was split by ricochet, or it is more probable that it was of the unjacketed variety.
The effect is identical with that of a shrapnel ball, striking with its normal low velocity, which is about the same as that of the missile in this wound.
The invariable characteristic of a shrapnel wound of a bone, namely, the small particles of metal marking its course in contact with the bone, is seen in this plate.
This U.S. War Department bulletin from 1915 reproduces over a hundred roentgenograms taken by Major Clyde S. Ford in Constantinople during the Turko-Balkan War of 1912-1913. The catalog subjects—gunshot wounds, X-rays, and Balkan War medical care—accurately describe the content, but the excerpts reveal a work that is far more than a simple atlas. Ford’s commentary pairs each plate with a terse clinical narrative: wound of entrance, course of missile, presence or absence of exit, and the radiographic signs that indicate bone contact, such as “small metallic fragments spattered on the bone.”
Radiographic Evidence as Forensic Detail
Ford’s descriptions consistently treat the roentgenogram as a document of the missile’s behavior. In Plate 79, he notes “a few small metallic fragments spattered on the bone at the point of entrance” and “slight mark of deformity of the missile caused by its contact with the bone.” The shadow’s “distinct outline and normal size” tells him the ball lay near the plate. These observations are not merely descriptive; they are diagnostic, used to infer the missile’s path and the likelihood of infection. The excerpts show no interest in the soldier’s identity or the battle’s narrative—only in the mechanical interaction of lead and tissue.
Expectant Treatment and the Patient’s Refusal
Ford repeatedly recommends “expectant” treatment—leaving the missile in situ unless infection demands intervention. In Plate 80, a shrapnel ball lodged in the posterior nares caused no symptoms; the patient “wisely refused any meddlesome interference” and was discharged with the sinus wound closed. Plate 79 similarly reports “recovery followed with the ball left in situ, without causing the patient trouble enough to induce him to permit interference.” These remarks shift the focus from surgical heroism to a pragmatic conservatism that respects the patient’s autonomy, a stance that may surprise modern readers accustomed to aggressive extraction.
The Bulletin’s Institutional Frame
The title page identifies this as War Department Bulletin No. 9, published by authority of an act of Congress and with the approval of the Secretary of War. The intended audience is explicitly “medical officers.” Yet the excerpts also reveal a personal dimension: Ford mentions receiving Plate 80 “from the service of Prof. De Page, of the Belgian Red Cross Mission, at Josh Keshla Hospital, Constantinople.” This detail situates the work within a network of international medical cooperation during the Balkan Wars. The bulletin thus functions both as a technical manual and as a historical artifact of early military radiology.
Readers should approach this text as a primary source in the history of military medicine and radiology. The plates themselves are not reproduced in the Project Gutenberg text, but Ford’s verbal descriptions are precise enough to reconstruct the radiographic findings. The work rewards attention to his diagnostic reasoning—how he reads shadow size, outline, and metallic fragments to reconstruct the missile’s path—and to the institutional and ethical context of his recommendations for expectant treatment.
Flipping through those Constantinopole plates, I kept thinking how strange it is that a shattered bone can tell such a silent story. That same quiet awe followed me into another volume, one that lingers on the body’s mysteries rather than its injuries — Curiosities of Medical Experience — Text and Context — as if both books were whispered from the same vanished bedside.
There are no reviews for this eBook.
Your personal reading reflection
Build a private reading journal entry for this title.