Citation

Hayes R, Dai S. BMJ Case Rep. 2019; 12(6): e229629.

Affiliation

Ophthalmology, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, BMJ Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1136/bcr-2019-229629

PMID

31178435

Abstract

Gel blasters fire a hydrated gel polymer and are developed to circumvent the restrictions placed on paintball and airsoft guns. Because there are no reported cases of injury caused by gel blasters in the literature, some Australian jurisdictions have categorised them as a toy. Presented here are two cases of potentially blinding blunt ocular trauma which question the misguided notion they are a harmless toy. Two children each with a macrohyphaema were managed at a tertiary ophthalmology centre within 2 weeks of each other after being struck by a gel blaster projectile. Their vision ultimately returned to normal, but both face lifelong risks of ocular complications. These cases highlight the need for vigilance, and the appropriate restriction of powerful weapons, with the inherent need for eye protection when operating any such projectiles reiterated. It is recommended their licensing is made congruous with paintball guns to prevent false reassurance of their safety.

© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Language: en

Keywords

accidents, injuries; anterior chamber; ophthalmology; paediatrics; public health