Gil Graziani1, Sigal Tal2, Adi Adelman1, Chen Kugel3, Tali Bdolah-Abram1, Alon Krispin4. 1. Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel. 2. Radiology Department, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin 70300, Israel; The Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel. 3. The National Institute of Forensic Medicine, 67 Ben Zvi Rd., Tel-Aviv, Israel; The Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel. 4. The National Institute of Forensic Medicine, 67 Ben Zvi Rd., Tel-Aviv, Israel; The Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel. Electronic address: alon.krispin@forensic.health.gov.il.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/ BACKGROUND: Post-mortem CT (PMCT) is becoming an essential tool available to forensic pathologists worldwide, but its validity with respect to evidence for legal purposes still requires more comprehensive large-scale studies, comparing PMCT to autopsy. This article compares PMCT and autopsy findings of the head, neck, and spine during a period of five years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 203 cases for which both autopsy and PMCT were performed. All relevant findings were extracted from the reports and divided into 30 categories based on anatomical location and tissue characteristics. Data were evaluated quantitatively in a binary fashion. RESULTS/ FINDINGS: A high level of agreement was noted for skull fractures, intraventricular- and subarachnoid hemorrhages, bullet trajectories, and intracranial shrapnel. A fair correlation was demonstrated for brain atrophy or herniation, and findings in the facial soft tissues. PMCT had higher sensitivity to brain edema, presence of gas in tissues or cavities, and findings in the spinal column and spinal canal, whereas autopsy better demonstrated pathologies in the brain tissue, hemorrhages in the neck and fractures of the larynx and hyoid bone. A relatively low correlation was noted for subdural and epidural hematomata. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: For several locations, structures, and specific findings in the head, neck and spine, autopsy remains indispensable. However, PMCT better demonstrated some findings in locations that are difficult to access by autopsy, or structures that might be damaged due to autopsy procedure. For the examinations of these, PMCT may in specific cases serve as an alternative to autopsy. Generally, however, due to the vast and fundamental differences that distinguish each case from the next, and the different purposes that autopsy may serve, we propose that the decision as to which method (or a combination of both) should be used, be made according to the circumstances and expected findings of each case.
INTRODUCTION/ BACKGROUND: Post-mortem CT (PMCT) is becoming an essential tool available to forensic pathologists worldwide, but its validity with respect to evidence for legal purposes still requires more comprehensive large-scale studies, comparing PMCT to autopsy. This article compares PMCT and autopsy findings of the head, neck, and spine during a period of five years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 203 cases for which both autopsy and PMCT were performed. All relevant findings were extracted from the reports and divided into 30 categories based on anatomical location and tissue characteristics. Data were evaluated quantitatively in a binary fashion. RESULTS/ FINDINGS: A high level of agreement was noted for skull fractures, intraventricular- and subarachnoid hemorrhages, bullet trajectories, and intracranial shrapnel. A fair correlation was demonstrated for brain atrophy or herniation, and findings in the facial soft tissues. PMCT had higher sensitivity to brain edema, presence of gas in tissues or cavities, and findings in the spinal column and spinal canal, whereas autopsy better demonstrated pathologies in the brain tissue, hemorrhages in the neck and fractures of the larynx and hyoid bone. A relatively low correlation was noted for subdural and epidural hematomata. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: For several locations, structures, and specific findings in the head, neck and spine, autopsy remains indispensable. However, PMCT better demonstrated some findings in locations that are difficult to access by autopsy, or structures that might be damaged due to autopsy procedure. For the examinations of these, PMCT may in specific cases serve as an alternative to autopsy. Generally, however, due to the vast and fundamental differences that distinguish each case from the next, and the different purposes that autopsy may serve, we propose that the decision as to which method (or a combination of both) should be used, be made according to the circumstances and expected findings of each case.
Authors: Mikkel Jon Henningsen; Mette Lønstrup Harving; Christina Jacobsen; Chiara Villa Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 2.791
Authors: Aleksandra Borowska-Solonynko; Kacper Koczyk; Katarzyna Blacha; Victoria Prokopowicz Journal: Forensic Sci Med Pathol Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Max G Mentink; Bartholomeus G H Latten; Frans C H Bakers; Casper Mihl; Roger J M W Rennenberg; Bela Kubat; Paul A M Hofman Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-18 Impact factor: 3.390