Yohsuke Makino1, Hajime Yokota2, Eiji Nakatani3, Daisuke Yajima4, Go Inokuchi4, Ayumi Motomura4, Fumiko Chiba5, Suguru Torimitsu5, Takashi Uno2, Hirotaro Iwase5. 1. Department of Forensic Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan; Department of Legal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba 260-8670, Japan. Electronic address: ymakino-tky@umin.ac.jp. 2. Department of Radiology, Chiba University Hospital, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba 260-8677, Japan. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan. 4. Department of Legal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba 260-8670, Japan. 5. Department of Forensic Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan; Department of Legal Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba 260-8670, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To clarify the differences between postmortem CT (PMCT) and autopsy findings in the postmortem detection of cervical spine injuries (CSIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our department's forensic pathology database was searched for CSI cases. In each case, the autopsy data and radiologists' interpretations were reviewed for the presence of bone fractures and intervertebral injuries. RESULTS: The study included 42 cases. For both bone fractures and intervertebral injuries, no substantial concordance between PMCT and autopsy findings was observed (McNemar's test: p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). Regarding bone fractures, more injuries were detected with CT than with autopsy (CT: 74, autopsy: 23). The percentage of CT-detected fractures that were missed at autopsy (77.0%, 57/74) was higher than the percentage of autopsy-detected fractures missed with CT (26.1%, 6/23). Regarding intervertebral injuries, fewer injuries were detected with CT than with autopsy (CT: 40, autopsy: 80). The percentage of CT-detected injuries that were missed at autopsy (35.0%, 14/40) was lower than the percentage of autopsy-detected injuries that were missed with CT (67.5%, 54/80). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of CSIs were detected by either PMCT or autopsy alone. Accurate evaluation for CSI requires the use of both methods.
OBJECTIVES: To clarify the differences between postmortem CT (PMCT) and autopsy findings in the postmortem detection of cervical spine injuries (CSIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our department's forensic pathology database was searched for CSI cases. In each case, the autopsy data and radiologists' interpretations were reviewed for the presence of bone fractures and intervertebral injuries. RESULTS: The study included 42 cases. For both bone fractures and intervertebral injuries, no substantial concordance between PMCT and autopsy findings was observed (McNemar's test: p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). Regarding bone fractures, more injuries were detected with CT than with autopsy (CT: 74, autopsy: 23). The percentage of CT-detected fractures that were missed at autopsy (77.0%, 57/74) was higher than the percentage of autopsy-detected fractures missed with CT (26.1%, 6/23). Regarding intervertebral injuries, fewer injuries were detected with CT than with autopsy (CT: 40, autopsy: 80). The percentage of CT-detected injuries that were missed at autopsy (35.0%, 14/40) was lower than the percentage of autopsy-detected injuries that were missed with CT (67.5%, 54/80). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of CSIs were detected by either PMCT or autopsy alone. Accurate evaluation for CSI requires the use of both methods.