The use of CT scanning in forensic autopsy

Radiology Review
  • 448 Downloads

Abstract

Postmortem computed tomography (CT) is being used more frequently in forensic medicine. This review discusses 100 deceased individuals who underwent CT scanning, as well as a standard autopsy. The CT scan was performed and interpreted by a forensic medicine specialist. In 11 cases, important findings discovered during the CT scan were not found at autopsy, and in 58 cases, important findings revealed at autopsy were not uncovered during the CT-scan. The cause of death could be established by the CT scan and external examination in 27%; by CT scan, external examination, and forensic chemistry in 32%; and by autopsy in 95% of the cases. CT scanning was most useful in cases of traumatic death. CT is rarely a substitute for autopsy, but may contribute important new information in cases such as identifications (particularly following mass disasters), battered children, gunshot wounds, traffic accidents, and air embolisms. CT provides documentation in digital form, which is easily stored and permits review by others. CT also provides pictures that may be more suitable for presentation in court than autopsy photos. CT scanning also would be helpful during a medicolegal external examination (inquest) in the process of selecting cases for autopsy.

Key Words

Forensic radiology forensic science autopsy computed tomography CT scanning imaging postmortem imagining 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Poulsen K, Simonsen J. Computed tomography as routine in connection with medio-legal autopsies. Forensic Sci Int August 4, 2006 [E pub ahead of Print].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thali MJ, Yen K, Schweitzer W, et al. Virtopsy a new imaging horizon in forensic pathology: virtual autopsy by postmortem multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-a feasibility study. J Forensic Sci 2003;48:386–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dirnhofer R, Jackowski C, Vock P, et al. VIRTOPSY: minimally invasive, imaging-guided virtual autopsy. Radiographics 2006;26:1305–1333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thali MJ, Yen K, Vock P, et al. Image-guided virtual autopsy findings of gunshot victims performed with multi-slice computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent correlation between radiology and autopsy findings. Forensic Sci Int 2003;138:8–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oehmichen M, Gehl HB, Meissner C, et al. Forensic Pathological aspects of postmortem imaging of gunshot injury to the head: documentation and biometric data. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 2003;105:570–580.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rutty GM, Jeffery AJ, Bouhaidar R, Robinson C, The first reported use of multisclice computered tomography for mass fatality radiological investigation (oral presentation) Congress of the International Academy of Legal Medicine, Budapest, 20th August 23–26, [E pub ahead of print] 2006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sidler M, Jackowski C, Dirnhofer R, et al. Use of multislice computed tomography in disaster victim identification-Advantages and limitations. Forensic Sci Int 2006 September 22.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jackowski C, Thali M, Sonnenschein M, et al. Visualization and quantification of air embolism structure by processing postmortem MSCT data. J Forensic Sci 2004;49(6): 1339–1342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Forensic MedicineUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations