OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influence the quality of postmortem magnetic resonance (MR) images of musculoskeletal (MSK) structures as described in the literature, and to evaluate the extent to which these MR images are affected. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four useful studies were retrieved from a PubMed and EMBASE search, covering the literature up to 1 March 2012. Three additional studies were included after a manual search from reference lists. RESULTS: Four human studies and three animal studies are considered in this review. Postmortem MRI quality can be affected by storage temperature, repeated freezing and thawing and fixation. Provided there was an adequate, but above-freezing storage temperature, postmortem changes in fresh cadavers did not appear to affect the MR image quality of MSK structures up to 14 days after death. Image contrast, signal intensities, and relaxation times are temperature-dependent, regardless of whether the specimen was fresh or postmortem for up to 7 days. Bad image quality can occur owing to accelerated autolysis. Freezing and thawing did not affect image quality, unless repeated too often, or whenever a heating pad was used to speed up the thawing process. Conventional formalin-based fixation leads to swelling of soft tissue and fluid accumulation in joints, and therefore to deteriorated images, with image quality just sufficient to visualize gross anatomy. CONCLUSION: Various factors were identified that affect postmortem MR image quality of MSK structures. Postmortem MR image quality was good, except for images of the fixated specimen. Freezing is the preferred method of conservation for specimens that are to be subjected to postmortem MRI.
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influence the quality of postmortem magnetic resonance (MR) images of musculoskeletal (MSK) structures as described in the literature, and to evaluate the extent to which these MR images are affected. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four useful studies were retrieved from a PubMed and EMBASE search, covering the literature up to 1 March 2012. Three additional studies were included after a manual search from reference lists. RESULTS: Four human studies and three animal studies are considered in this review. Postmortem MRI quality can be affected by storage temperature, repeated freezing and thawing and fixation. Provided there was an adequate, but above-freezing storage temperature, postmortem changes in fresh cadavers did not appear to affect the MR image quality of MSK structures up to 14 days after death. Image contrast, signal intensities, and relaxation times are temperature-dependent, regardless of whether the specimen was fresh or postmortem for up to 7 days. Bad image quality can occur owing to accelerated autolysis. Freezing and thawing did not affect image quality, unless repeated too often, or whenever a heating pad was used to speed up the thawing process. Conventional formalin-based fixation leads to swelling of soft tissue and fluid accumulation in joints, and therefore to deteriorated images, with image quality just sufficient to visualize gross anatomy. CONCLUSION: Various factors were identified that affect postmortem MR image quality of MSK structures. Postmortem MR image quality was good, except for images of the fixated specimen. Freezing is the preferred method of conservation for specimens that are to be subjected to postmortem MRI.
Authors: Michael J Thali; Kathrin Yen; Wolf Schweitzer; Peter Vock; Chris Boesch; Christoph Ozdoba; Gerhard Schroth; Michael Ith; Martin Sonnenschein; Tanja Doernhoefer; Eva Scheurer; Thomas Plattner; Richard Dirnhofer Journal: J Forensic Sci Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 1.832
Authors: Richard Dirnhofer; Christian Jackowski; Peter Vock; Kimberlee Potter; Michael J Thali Journal: Radiographics Date: 2006 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Michael J Thali; Christian Jackowski; Lars Oesterhelweg; Steffen G Ross; Richard Dirnhofer Journal: Leg Med (Tokyo) Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 1.376
Authors: Thomas D Ruder; Gary M Hatch; Lea Siegenthaler; Garyfalia Ampanozi; Sandra Mathier; Michael J Thali; Oliver M Weber Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Géraldine E Bolen; Dimitri Haye; Robert F Dondelinger; Laurent Massart; Valeria Busoni Journal: Am J Vet Res Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 1.156
Authors: Ian S D Roberts; Rachel E Benamore; Emyr W Benbow; Stephen H Lee; Jonathan N Harris; Alan Jackson; Susan Mallett; Tufail Patankar; Charles Peebles; Carl Roobottom; Zoe C Traill Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Adrian Viehweger; Till Riffert; Bibek Dhital; Thomas R Knösche; Alfred Anwander; Holger Stepan; Ina Sorge; Wolfgang Hirsch Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2014-05-10
Authors: Grit Gesine Ruth Schramek; Dietrich Stoevesandt; Ansgar Reising; Jan Thomas Kielstein; Marcus Hiss; Heike Kielstein Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 2.463