Intra vitam trauma pattern: changing the paradigm of forensic anthropology?
This study aims to improve a previous study that reported new traits to characterize a perimortem fracture pattern in human long bones. This second study aims to acquire further knowledge about these perimortem traits, specifically by improving the experimental setting—by using a Blunt Force Trauma Simulator—and increasing the sample size with a total of 43 autopsy specimens and 57 reproduced fractures. Additionally, we investigated whether these traits could be related to muscular contractions by adding axial compression in the experimentally fractured specimens. If intra vitam traits can be found, it would consequentially be more valuable for forensic anthropologists to shorten the perimortem period. We demonstrate that all traits are perimortem traits. Furthermore, based on our results, we see the tendency that the combination of traits—instead of the presence of each trait individually—may make it possible to distinguish intra vitam from perimortem fractures. This study confirms these distinct characteristics that can be valuable to utilize in the distinction between peri- and postmortem fractures.
KeywordsForensic anthropology Bone trauma Time of injury Perimortem trauma Traits
Special thanks go to the technicians and personnel staff of the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences of Catalonia (IMLCFC) and to the staff of the medical department of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB). They thank Vincent Scheirs for the design and construction of the Blunt Force Trauma Simulator.
Financial aid was from the research group of Biological Anthropology (GREAB) from project SGR14-1420.
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was approved by the Ethics Commission of Human and Animal Experimental Work (CEEAH) of the UAB, in compliance with the ethical regulations.
- 1.Sauer NJ (1998) The timing of injuries and manner of death: distinguishing among antemortem, perimortem, and postmortem trauma. In: Reichs KJ (ed) Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, pp 321–332Google Scholar
- 2.Reichs KJ (1998) Forensic osteology: advances in the identification of human remains, 2nd edn. Charles C Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
- 3.Christensen AM, Passalacqua NV, Bartelink EJ (2014) Forensic anthropology: current methods and practice. Academic, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 4.Symes SA, L’Abbé EN, Stull KE et al (2014) Chapter 13: Taphonomy and the timing of bone fractures in trauma analysis. In: Pokines JT, Symes SA (eds) Manual of forensic taphonomy. CRC Press, Florida, pp 341–365Google Scholar
- 5.Nawrocki S (2009) Forensic Taphonomy. In: Blau S, Ubelaker DH (eds) Handbook of forensic anthropology and archaeology. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp 284–295Google Scholar
- 7.Scheirs S, Malgosa A, Sanchez-Molina D, Ortega-Sánchez M, Velázquez-Ameijide J, Arregui-Dalmases C, Medallo-Muñiz J, Galtés I (2016) New insights in the analysis of blunt force trauma in human bones. Preliminary results. Int J Legal Med 131:867–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-016-1514-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Galloway A, Zephro L, Wedel VL (2014) Diagnostic criteria for the determination of timing and fracture mechanism. In: Wedel VL, Galloway A (eds) Broken bones. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, p 479Google Scholar
- 18.Mazess RB (1982) On aging bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res:239–252Google Scholar