Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 46, Issue 9, pp 1363–1369 | Cite as

ESPR postmortem imaging task force: where we begin

  • Owen J. ArthursEmail author
  • Rick R. van Rijn
  • Elspeth H. Whitby
  • Karl Johnson
  • Elka Miller
  • Martin Stenzel
  • Andrew Watt
  • Ajay Taranath
  • David H. Perry
ESPR

Abstract

A new task force on postmortem imaging was established at the annual meeting of the European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR) in Graz, Austria, in 2015. The postmortem task force is separate from the child abuse task force as it covers all aspects of fetal, neonatal and non-forensic postmortem imaging. The main focus of the task force is the guidance and standardization of non-radiographic postmortem imaging, particularly postmortem CT and postmortem MRI. This manuscript outlines the starting point of the task force, with a mission statement, outline of current experience, and short- and long-term goals.

Keywords

Autopsy Child Computed tomography Imaging Minimally invasive postmortem examination Magnetic resonance imaging Postmortem 

Notes

Acknowledgments

O. J. Arthurs is funded by a National Institute of Health Research (NIHR, United Kingdom) Clinician Scientist Fellow award. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR or the Department of Health of the United Kingdom.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Rutty GN, Brogdon G, Dedouit F et al (2013) Terminology used in publications for post-mortem cross-sectional imaging. Int J Legal Med 127:465–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arthurs OJ, van Rijn RR, Sebire NJ (2014) Current status of paediatric post-mortem imaging: an ESPR questionnaire-based survey. Pediatr Radiol 44:244–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calder AC, Offiah AC (2015) Fetal radiography for suspected skeletal dysplasia: technique, normal appearances, diagnostic approach. Pediatr Radiol 45:536–548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Royal College of Pathologists Working Party on the Autopsy (2006) Guidelines on Autopsy Practice: Scenario 9: Stillborn infant (singleton). June 2006. http://www.rcpath.org/Resources/RCPath/Migrated%20Resources/Documents/G/G001Autopsy-Stillbirths-Jun06.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  5. 5.
    Arthurs OJ, Calder AC, Kiho L et al (2014) Routine perinatal and paediatric post mortem radiography: detection rates and practice implications. Pediatr Radiol 44:252–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Olsen EØE, Espeland A, Maartmann-Moe H et al (2003) Diagnostic value of radiography in cases of perinatal death: a population based study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 88:F521–F524CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Votino C, Bessieres B, Segers V et al (2014) Minimally invasive fetal autopsy using three-dimensional ultrasound: a feasibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi: 10.1002/uog.14642 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Charlier P, Chaillot PF, Watier L et al (2013) Is post-mortem ultrasonography a useful tool for forensic purposes? Med Sci Law 3:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prodhomme O, Baud C, Saguintaah M et al (2015) Principles of fetal postmortem ultrasound: a personal review. J Forensic Radiol Imaging 3:12–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sarda-Quarello L, Tuchtan L, Bartoli C et al (2015) Post-mortem perinatal imaging: state of the art and perspectives, with an emphasis on ultrasound. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 43:612–615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jawad N, Sebire NJ, Wade A et al (2015) Bodyweight limits of fetal post mortem MRI at 1.5T. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi: 10.1002/uog.14948 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Breeze ACG, Jessop FA, Whitehead AL et al (2008) Feasibility of percutaneous organ biopsy as part of a minimally invasive perinatal autopsy. Virchows Arch 452:201–207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garg S, Basu S, Mohan H et al (2009) Comparison of needle autopsy with conventional autopsy in neonates. Fetal Pediatr Pathol 28:139–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fariña J, Millana C, Fdez-Aceñero J et al (2002) Ultrasonographic autopsy (echopsy): a new autopsy technique. Virchows Arch 440:635–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Donoghue K, O’Regan KN, Sheridan CP et al (2012) Investigation of the role of computed tomography as an adjunct to autopsy in the evaluation of stillbirth. Eur J Radiol 81:1667-1675Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Proisy M, Marchand AJ, Loget P et al (2013) Whole-body post-mortem computed tomography compared with autopsy in the investigation of unexpected death in infants and children. Eur Radiol 23:1711–1719CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arthurs OJ, Guy A, Thayyil S et al (2015) Comparison of diagnostic performance for perinatal and paediatric post-mortem imaging: CT versus MRI. Eur Radiol. PMID: 26489748Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oyake Y, Aoki T, Shiotani S et al (2006) Postmortem computed tomography for detecting causes of sudden death in infants and children: retrospective review of cases. Radiat Med 24:493–502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hong TS, Reyes JA, Moineddin R et al (2011) Value of postmortem thoracic CT over radiography in imaging of pediatric rib fractures. Pediatr Radiol 41:736–748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arthurs OJ, Guy A, Kiho L et al (2015) Ventilated postmortem computed tomography in children: feasibility and initial experience. Int J Legal Med 129:1113–1120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Votino C, Cannie M, Segers V et al (2012) Virtual autopsy by computed tomographic angiography of the fetal heart: a feasibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39:679–684CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sarda-Quarello L, Bartoli C, Laurent PE et al (2015) Whole body perinatal postmortem CT angiography. Diagn Interv Imaging 97:121–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rüegger CM, Bartsch C, Martinez RM et al (2014) Minimally invasive, imaging guided virtual autopsy compared to conventional autopsy in foetal, newborn and infant cases: study protocol for the paediatric virtual autopsy trial. BMC Pediatr 14:15CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brookes JA, Hall-Craggs MA, Sams VR et al (1996) Non-invasive perinatal necropsy by magnetic resonance imaging. Lancet 348:1139–1141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Woodward PJ, Sohaey R, Harris DP et al (1987) Postmortem fetal MR imaging: comparison with findings at autopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Griffiths PD, Paley MNJ, Whitby EH (2005) Post-mortem MRI as an adjunct to fetal or neonatal autopsy. Lancet 365:1271–1273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thayyil S, Schievano S, Robertson NJ et al (2009) A semi-automated method for non-invasive internal organ weight estimation by post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses, newborns and children. Eur J Radiol 72:321–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prodhomme O, Seguret F, Martrille L et al (2012) Organ volume measurements: comparison between MRI and autopsy findings in infants following sudden unexpected death. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 97:F434–F438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Votino C, Verhoye M, Segers V et al (2012) Fetal organ weight estimation by postmortem high-field magnetic resonance imaging before 20 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39:673–678CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thayyil S, Sebire NJ, Chitty LS et al (2013) Post-mortem MRI versus conventional autopsy in fetuses and children: a prospective validation study. Lancet 382:223–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Arthurs OJ, Thayyil S, Owens CM et al (2015) Diagnostic accuracy of post mortem MRI for abdominal abnormalities in foetuses and children. Eur J Radiol 84:474–481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Arthurs OJ, Thayyil S, Olsen OE et al (2014) Diagnostic accuracy of post-mortem MRI for thoracic abnormalities in fetuses and children. Eur Radiol 24:2876–2884CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Arthurs OJ, Taylor AM, Sebire NJ (2015) Indications, advantages and limitations of perinatal post mortem imaging in clinical practice. Pediatr Radiol 45:491–500Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Arthurs OJ, Barber J, Taylor AM et al (2015) Normal perinatal and paediatric post mortem magnetic resonance imaging appearance. Pediatr Radiol 45:527–535CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    The Royal College of Child Health and Paediatrics and The Royal College of Radiologists (2008) Standards for radiological investigations of suspected non-accidental injury. London; RCPCH. Ref BFCR(08)1. https://www.rcr.ac.uk/publication/standards-radiological-investigations-suspected-non-accidental-injury. [Accessed 05 Jan 2016]
  36. 36.
    Ruder TD (2013) What are the key objectives of the ISFRI?—evaluation of the ISFRI member survey. J Forensic Radiol Imaging 1:142–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ruder TD, Ross SG, Hatch GM (2013) Second congress of the International Society of Forensic Radiology and Imaging (ISFRI) - towards a joint future in forensic imaging. J Forensic Radiol Imaging 1:146–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Owen J. Arthurs
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Rick R. van Rijn
    • 3
  • Elspeth H. Whitby
    • 4
  • Karl Johnson
    • 5
  • Elka Miller
    • 6
  • Martin Stenzel
    • 7
  • Andrew Watt
    • 8
  • Ajay Taranath
    • 9
  • David H. Perry
    • 10
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
  2. 2.Institute of Child Health, UCLLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyEmma Children’s Hospital - Academic Medical Center AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Academic unit of Reproductive and Developmental MedicineUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  5. 5.Radiology DepartmentBirmingham Children’s HospitalBirminghamUK
  6. 6.Department of Medical Imaging, Children’s Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  7. 7.Department of RadiologyUniversity Hospital FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  8. 8.Department of Diagnostic Imaging & Clinical PhysicsThe Royal Hospital for ChildrenGlasgowUK
  9. 9.Department of Medical ImagingWomen’s and Children’s HospitalNorth AdelaideAustralia
  10. 10.Radiology Department, National Women’s Health and Starship Children’s HospitalAuckland City HospitalGraftonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations