BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Multi-phase postmortem CT angiography (MPMCTA) is increasingly being recognized as a valuable adjunct medicolegal tool to explore the vascular system. Adequate interpretation, however, requires knowledge about the most common technique-related artefacts. The purpose of this study was to identify and index the possible artefacts related to MPMCTA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An experienced radiologist blinded to all clinical and forensic data retrospectively reviewed 49 MPMCTAs. Each angiographic phase, i.e. arterial, venous and dynamic, was analysed separately to identify phase-specific artefacts based on location and aspect. RESULTS: Incomplete contrast filling of the cerebral venous system was the most commonly encountered artefact, followed by contrast agent layering in the lumen of the thoracic aorta. Enhancement or so-called oedematization of the digestive system mucosa was also frequently observed. CONCLUSION: All MPMCTA artefacts observed and described here are reproducible and easily identifiable. Knowledge about these artefacts is important to avoid misinterpreting them as pathological findings.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Multi-phase postmortem CT angiography (MPMCTA) is increasingly being recognized as a valuable adjunct medicolegal tool to explore the vascular system. Adequate interpretation, however, requires knowledge about the most common technique-related artefacts. The purpose of this study was to identify and index the possible artefacts related to MPMCTA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An experienced radiologist blinded to all clinical and forensic data retrospectively reviewed 49 MPMCTAs. Each angiographic phase, i.e. arterial, venous and dynamic, was analysed separately to identify phase-specific artefacts based on location and aspect. RESULTS: Incomplete contrast filling of the cerebral venous system was the most commonly encountered artefact, followed by contrast agent layering in the lumen of the thoracic aorta. Enhancement or so-called oedematization of the digestive system mucosa was also frequently observed. CONCLUSION: All MPMCTA artefacts observed and described here are reproducible and easily identifiable. Knowledge about these artefacts is important to avoid misinterpreting them as pathological findings.
Authors: Richard Dirnhofer; Christian Jackowski; Peter Vock; Kimberlee Potter; Michael J Thali Journal: Radiographics Date: 2006 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Christian Jackowski; Martin Sonnenschein; Michael J Thali; Emin Aghayev; Gabriel von Allmen; Kathrin Yen; Richard Dirnhofer; Peter Vock Journal: J Forensic Sci Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 1.832
Authors: Silke Grabherr; Erich Gygax; Barbara Sollberger; Steffen Ross; Lars Oesterhelweg; Stephan Bolliger; Andreas Christe; Valentin Djonov; Michael J Thali; Richard Dirnhofer Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Conrad Wittram; Michael M Maher; Albert J Yoo; Mannudeep K Kalra; Jo-Anne O Shepard; Theresa C McLoud Journal: Radiographics Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Owen J Arthurs; Anna Guy; Sudhin Thayyil; Angie Wade; Rod Jones; Wendy Norman; Rosemary Scott; Nicola J Robertson; Thomas S Jacques; W K 'Kling' Chong; Roxanna Gunny; Dawn Saunders; Oystein E Olsen; Catherine M Owens; Amaka C Offiah; Lyn S Chitty; Andrew M Taylor; Neil J Sebire Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Francesco Paolo Busardò; Paola Frati; Giuseppe Guglielmi; Giampaolo Grilli; Antonio Pinto; Antonio Rotondo; Valeria Panebianco; Vittorio Fineschi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Samantha Higgins; Sarah Parsons; Noel Woodford; Matthew Lynch; Christopher Briggs; Chris O'Donnell Journal: Forensic Sci Med Pathol Date: 2017-05-20 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Daniel Paech; Kerstin Klopries; Sara Doll; Ralph Nawrotzki; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Frederik L Giesel; Thomas Kuner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 5.315