Philip A Glemser1,2, Michael Pfleiderer3, Anna Heger4, Jan Tremper3, Astrid Krauskopf4, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer3, Kathrin Yen4, David Simons5. 1. Institute of Forensic Medicine, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Voßstraße 2, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany. p.glemser@dkfz.de. 2. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. p.glemser@dkfz.de. 3. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Institute of Forensic Medicine, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Voßstraße 2, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. d.simons@dkfz.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this multi-reader feasibility study was to evaluate new post-processing CT imaging tools in rib fracture assessment of forensic cases by analyzing detection time and diagnostic accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty autopsy cases (20 with and 10 without rib fractures in autopsy) were randomly selected and included in this study. All cases received a native whole body CT scan prior to the autopsy procedure, which included dissection and careful evaluation of each rib. In addition to standard transverse sections (modality A), CT images were subjected to a reconstruction algorithm to compute axial labelling of the ribs (modality B) as well as "unfolding" visualizations of the rib cage (modality C, "eagle tool"). Three radiologists with different clinical and forensic experience who were blinded to autopsy results evaluated all cases in a random manner of modality and case. RESULTS: Rib fracture assessment of each reader was evaluated compared to autopsy and a CT consensus read as radiologic reference. A detailed evaluation of relevant test parameters revealed a better accordance to the CT consensus read as to the autopsy. Modality C was the significantly quickest rib fracture detection modality despite slightly reduced statistic test parameters compared to modalities A and B. CONCLUSION: Modern CT post-processing software is able to shorten reading time and to increase sensitivity and specificity compared to standard autopsy alone. The eagle tool as an easy to use tool is suited for an initial rib fracture screening prior to autopsy and can therefore be beneficial for forensic pathologists.
PURPOSE: The aim of this multi-reader feasibility study was to evaluate new post-processing CT imaging tools in rib fracture assessment of forensic cases by analyzing detection time and diagnostic accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty autopsy cases (20 with and 10 without rib fractures in autopsy) were randomly selected and included in this study. All cases received a native whole body CT scan prior to the autopsy procedure, which included dissection and careful evaluation of each rib. In addition to standard transverse sections (modality A), CT images were subjected to a reconstruction algorithm to compute axial labelling of the ribs (modality B) as well as "unfolding" visualizations of the rib cage (modality C, "eagle tool"). Three radiologists with different clinical and forensic experience who were blinded to autopsy results evaluated all cases in a random manner of modality and case. RESULTS: Rib fracture assessment of each reader was evaluated compared to autopsy and a CT consensus read as radiologic reference. A detailed evaluation of relevant test parameters revealed a better accordance to the CT consensus read as to the autopsy. Modality C was the significantly quickest rib fracture detection modality despite slightly reduced statistic test parameters compared to modalities A and B. CONCLUSION: Modern CT post-processing software is able to shorten reading time and to increase sensitivity and specificity compared to standard autopsy alone. The eagle tool as an easy to use tool is suited for an initial rib fracture screening prior to autopsy and can therefore be beneficial for forensic pathologists.
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: Andreas Christe; Patricia Flach; Steffen Ross; Danny Spendlove; Stephan Bolliger; Peter Vock; Michael J Thali Journal: Leg Med (Tokyo) Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 1.376
Authors: Helmut Ringl; Mathias Lazar; Michael Töpker; Ramona Woitek; Helmut Prosch; Ulrika Asenbaum; Csilla Balassy; Daniel Toth; Michael Weber; Stefan Hajdu; Grzegorz Soza; Andreas Wimmer; Thomas Mang Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: C Cattaneo; E Marinelli; A Di Giancamillo; M Di Giancamillo; O Travetti; L Vigano'; P Poppa; D Porta; A Gentilomo; M Grandi Journal: Forensic Sci Int Date: 2006-02-08 Impact factor: 2.395
Authors: Martin Kolopp; Nicolas Douis; Ayla Urbaneja; Cédric Baumann; Pedro Augusto Gondim Teixeira; Alain Blum; Laurent Martrille Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2019-11-16 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: Victor Ibanez; Samuel Gunz; Svenja Erne; Eric J Rawdon; Garyfalia Ampanozi; Sabine Franckenberg; Till Sieberth; Raffael Affolter; Lars C Ebert; Akos Dobay Journal: Forensic Sci Med Pathol Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 2.007