Literature DB >> 19835570

A comparative study of cranial, blunt trauma fractures as seen at medicolegal autopsy and by computed tomography.

Christina Jacobsen1, Birthe H Bech, Niels Lynnerup.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Computed Tomography (CT) has become a widely used supplement to medico legal autopsies at several forensic institutes. Amongst other things, it has proven to be very valuable in visualising fractures of the cranium. Also CT scan data are being used to create head models for biomechanical trauma analysis by Finite Element Analysis. If CT scan data are to be used for creating individual head models for retrograde trauma analysis in the future we need to ascertain how well cranial fractures are captured by CT scan. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic agreement between CT and autopsy regarding cranial fractures and especially the precision with which cranial fractures are recorded.
METHODS: The autopsy fracture diagnosis was compared to the diagnosis of two CT readings (reconstructed with Multiplanar and Maximum Intensity Projection reconstructions) by registering the fractures on schematic drawings. The extent of the fractures was quantified by merging 3-dimensional datasets from both the autopsy as input by 3D digitizer tracing and CT scan.
RESULTS: The results showed a good diagnostic agreement regarding fractures localised in the posterior fossa, while the fracture diagnosis in the medial and anterior fossa was difficult at the first CT scan reading. The fracture diagnosis improved during the second CT scan reading. Thus using two different CT reconstructions improved diagnosis in the medial fossa and at the impact points in the cranial vault. However, fracture diagnosis in the anterior and medial fossa and of hairline fractures in general still remained difficult.
CONCLUSION: The study showed that the forensically important fracture systems to a large extent were diagnosed on CT images using Multiplanar and Maximum Intensity Projection reconstructions. Difficulties remained in the minute diagnosis of hairline fractures. These inconsistencies need to be resolved in order to use CT scan data of victims for individual head modelling and trauma analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19835570      PMCID: PMC2770453          DOI: 10.1186/1471-2342-9-18

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Med Imaging        ISSN: 1471-2342            Impact factor:   1.930


  52 in total

1.  Forensic pathological aspects of postmortem imaging of gunshot injury to the head: documentation and biometric data.

Authors:  M Oehmichen; H-B Gehl; C Meissner; D Petersen; W Höche; I Gerling; H G König
Journal:  Acta Neuropathol       Date:  2003-03-08       Impact factor: 17.088

Review 2.  New autopsy signs in violent death.

Authors:  Eberhard Lignitz; Véronique Henn
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2006-08-17       Impact factor: 2.395

3.  The mechanism of skull fracture.

Authors:  E S GURDJIAN; J E WEBSTER; H R LISSNER
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1950-03       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Radiologic assessment of maxillofacial, mandibular, and skull base trauma.

Authors:  Bernhard Schuknecht; Klaus Graetz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-01-21       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  CT and MR imaging of acute cranial trauma.

Authors:  James Provenzale
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2007-02-22

Review 6.  New developments in the neuroradiological diagnosis of craniocerebral trauma.

Authors:  P M Parizel; J W Van Goethem; O Ozsarlak; M Maes; C D Phillips
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-02-05       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Transsphenoid basilar skull fracture: CT patterns.

Authors:  O C West; S E Mirvis; K Shanmuganathan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Biofidelic child head FE model to simulate real world trauma.

Authors:  Sébastien Roth; Jean-Sébastien Raul; Rémy Willinger
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2008-03-14       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  Is routine computed tomographic (CT) scanning necessary in suspected basal skull fractures?

Authors:  K Y Goh; A Ahuja; S B Walkden; W S Poon
Journal:  Injury       Date:  1997 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 2.586

Review 10.  Forensic injury biomechanics.

Authors:  Wilson C Hayes; Mark S Erickson; Erik D Power
Journal:  Annu Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 9.590

View more
  3 in total

1.  Sensitivity and specificity of CT scan in revealing skull fracture in medico-legal head injury victims.

Authors:  Hitesh Chawla; Rohtas K Yadav; Mahavir S Griwan; Ranjana Malhotra; Pramod K Paliwal
Journal:  Australas Med J       Date:  2015-07-31

2.  Differences between postmortem computed tomography and conventional autopsy in a stabbing murder case.

Authors:  Talita Zerbini; Luiz Fernando Ferraz da Silva; Antonio Carlos Gonçalves Ferro; Fernando Uliana Kay; Edson Amaro Junior; Carlos Augusto Gonçalves Pasqualucci; Paulo Hilario do Nascimento Saldiva
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.365

3.  A Comparative Study of Intravital CT and Autopsy Findings in Fatal Traumatic Injuries.

Authors:  Roman Kuruc; Andrea Szórádová; Ján Šikuta; Ľubomír Mikuláš; Jozef Šidlo
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-04
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.