Advertisement

Future Evidence in Forensic Imaging

  • Guy N. Rutty
  • Bruno Morgan
Chapter

Abstract

The idea that the traditional autopsy can no longer be considered the “gold standard” and should be combined with or replaced, if necessary, by the radiological study (post-mortem cross sectional imaging—PMCSI) is slowly gaining ground, despite the presence of opposing currents thought. To encourage the application of PMCSI it is necessary to concentrate resources in three key areas: (1) Research, to improve its incisiveness, reducing its costs and keeping in mind possible applications in clinical settings; (2) formation of a “necroradiologist”, with guaranteed specialist skills in the interpretation of radiological images of cadavers; (3) achievement of the standard, to ensure the quality of the results and give credibility to a still vulnerable field exposed to possible errors with catastrophic repercussions on its development and on the judiciary system. In the near future PMCSI will become the praxis in the study of the cadaver; however, for this purpose, it is necessary to promote research and a hyper-specialized training, to ensure the quality of results.

References

  1. 1.
    Kranz P, Holtas S (1983) Post-mortem computed tomography in a diving fatality. J Comput Assist Tomogr 7:132–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jeffery A, Morgan B, Raj V, West K, Rutty GN (2011) The criminal justice system’s considerations of so-called near-virtual autopsies: the East Midlands experience. J Clin Path 64:711–717CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rutty J, Morgan B, Rutty GN (2015) Managing transformational change: Implementing cross-sectional imaging into death investigation services in the United Kingdom. J Forensic Radiol Imaging 1(3):57–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rutty GN, Rutty JE (2011) Perceptions of near virtual autopsies. J Forensic Leg Med 18:306–309CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rutty GN (2007) Are autopsies necessary? The role of computed tomography as a possible alternative to invasive autopsies. Rechtsmedizin 17(1):21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rutty GN, Duerden RM, Carter N, Clark JC (2001) Are coroner’s autopsies necessary? A prospective study examining whether a ‘view and grant’ system of death certification could be introduced into England and Wales. J Clin Path 54:279–284CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biggs MJ, Brown LJ, Rutty GN (2008) Can cause of death be predicted from the pre-necropsy information provided in coroners’ cases? J Clin Path 61:124–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rutty GN, Morgan B, O’Donnell C, Leth PM, Thali M (2008) Forensic institutes across the world place CT or MRI scanners or both into their mortuaries. J Trauma 65:493–494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morgan B, Sakamoto N, Shiotani S, Grabherr S (2014) Postmortem computed tomography (PMCT) scanning with angiography (PMCTA): A description of three distinct methods. In: Rutty GN (ed) Essential of autopsy practice: Advances, Updates and Emerging Technologies, 1st edn. Springer, London, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rutty GN, Morgan B, Germerott T, Thali M, Athurs O (2016) Ventilated post-mortem computed tomography—A historical review. Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging 4:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Donchin Y, Rivkind AI, Bar-Ziv J, Hiss J, Almog J, Drescher M (1994) Utility of postmortem computed tomography in trauma victims. J Trauma 37(4):552–555, discussion 555–556Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rutty GN, Brogdon G, Dedouit F, Grabherr S, Hatch GM, Jackowski C, Leth P, Persson A, Ruder TD, Shiotani S, Takahashi N, Thali MJ, Woźniak K, Yen K, Morgan B (2013) Terminology used in publications for post-mortem cross-sectional imaging. Int J Legal Med 127:465–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ruder TD, Thali YA, Rashid SNA, Mund MT, Thali MJ, Hatch GM, Christensen AM, Somaini S, Ampanozi G (2016) Validation of post mortem dental CT for disaster victim identification. J Forensic Radiol Imaging 5:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brough AL, Morgan B, Robinson C, Black S, Cunningham C, Adams C, Rutty GN (2014) A minimum data set approach to post-mortem computed tomography reporting for anthropological biological profiling. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 10:504–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rutty GN, Morgan B (2015) Cross sectional imaging and the post-mortem interval. In: Madea B (ed) Estimation of the Time Since Death, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 269–275Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morgan B, Rutty GN (2016) How does post-mortem imaging compare to autopsy, is this a relevant question? J Forensic Radiol Imaging 4:2–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mackenzie R, Dixon AK (1995) Measuring the effects of imaging: an evaluative framework. Clin Radiol 50:513–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kasahara S, Makino Y, Hayakawa M, Yajima D, Ito H, Iwase H (2012) Diagnosable and non-diagnosable causes of death by postmortem computed tomography: a review of 339 forensic cases. Leg Med (Tokyo) 14:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bedford PJ (2012) Routine CT scan combined with preliminary examination as a new method in determining the need for autopsy. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 8:390–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bisset RA, Thomas NB, Turnbull IW, Lee S (2002) Postmortem examinations using magnetic resonance imaging: Four year review of a working service. BMJ 324(7351):1423–1424CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wichmann D, Obbelode F, Vogel H, Hoepker WW, Nierhaus A, Braune S, Sauter G, Pueschel K, Kluge S (2012) Virtual autopsy as an alternative to traditional medical autopsy in the intensive care unit: A prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med 156:123–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roberts IS, Benamore RE, Benbow EW, Lee SH, Harris JN, Jackson A, Mallett S, Patankar T, Peebles C, Roobottom C, Traill ZC (2012) Post-mortem imaging as an alternative to autopsy in the diagnosis of adult deaths: A validation study. Lancet 379(9811):136–142CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thayyil S, Chandrasekaran M, Chitty LS, Wade A, Skordis-Worrall J, Bennett-Britton I, Cohen M, Withby E, Sebire NJ, Robertson NJ, Taylor AM (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses, children and adults: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol 75:e142–e148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saunders SL, Morgan B, Raj V, Robinson CE, Rutty GN (2011) Targeted post-mortem computed tomography cardiac angiography: Proof of concept. Int J Legal Med 125(4):609–616CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ross SG, Thali MJ, Bolliger S, Germerott T, Ruder TD, Flach PM (2012) Sudden death after chest pain: Feasibility of virtual autopsy with postmortem CT angiography and biopsy. Radiology 264(1):250–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Adnan A, Robinson C, Biggs M, Joseph S, Morgan B, Rutty GN, Adlam D (2016) Optical coherence tomography of re-pressurised porcine coronary arteries: A systematic study. J Forensic Radiol Imaging 4:53–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robinson C, Adnan A, Adlam D, Biggs M, Rutty G, Morgan B (2016) Measuring pressure during coronary artery angiography in ex-vivo hearts. J Forensic Radiol Imaging 4:58–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rutty GN, Swift B (2004) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in determining cause of sudden death in adults: comparison with conventional autopsy. Histopathology 44:187–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forensic Pathology UnitUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations