Postmortem radiology studies in global and national healthcare: literature analysis and perspectives of Russian specialists

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Despite the significant importance of autopsies for determining the cause of death and the evaluating the effectiveness of treatments, there is a progressive decrease in their number across all countries. At the same time, there is an active introduction of postmortem radiological studies to analyze the bodies of deceased patients.

The article presents literature analysis summarizing the results of surveys from foreign specialists, as well as the opinions of Russian specialists, regarding the possibilities and features of postmortem radiological studies, mainly focusing on deceased newborns and infants. It is noted that postmortem radiological studies are carried out as part of both pathoanatomical autopsy and forensic medical examination. Postmortem computed tomography in cases of violent death and postmortem magnetic resonance imaging in cases of death from diseases were performed more often. General clinical equipment located in clinical radiology departments was more frequently used than those located in the mortuary, pathology department, or forensic facility. The analysis of the results of postmortem radiological examinations was predominantly carried out by radiologists, with a joint analysis involving a radiologist and a pathologist being less common. It is emphasized that in the Russian Federation, postmortem radiological studies are mostly of a single nature. According to Russian researchers, in the current era of advancing personalized medicine, radiation techniques, and information technologies, there arises a need to use postmortem radiological studies to objectify and improve the accuracy of traditional autopsies. Postmortem radiological studies, which are objective operator-independent methods of examining the bodies of dead people, should be considered as a highly effective stage of pathology and, especially, forensic autopsy.

About the authors

Alexander I. Shchegolev

Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology

Author for correspondence.
Email: ashegolev@oparina4.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2111-1530
SPIN-code: 9061-5983

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

Ulyana N. Tumanova

Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology

Email: ashegolev@oparina4.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0924-6555
SPIN-code: 7555-0987

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Connoly AJ, Finkbeiner WE, Ursell PC, Davis RL. Autopsy pathology: A manual and atlas. 3th ed. Elsevier Inc.; 2016. 400 р.
  2. Ernst LM. A pathologist’s perspective on the perinatal autopsy. Semin Perinatol. 2015;39(1):55–63. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2014.10.008
  3. Oluwasola OA, Fawole OI, Otegbayo AJ, et al. The autopsy knowledge, attitude, and perceptions of doctors and relatives of the deceased. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(1):78–82. doi: 10.5858/133.1.78
  4. Levy B. Informatics and autopsy pathology. Surg Pathol Clin. 2015;8(2):159–174. doi: 10.1016/j.path.2015.02.010
  5. 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(2):386–403.
  6. Eastridge BJ, Mardin M, Cantrell J, et al. Died of wounds on the battlefield: Causation and implications for improving combat casualty care. J Trauma. 2011;71(S.1):S4–8. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318221147b
  7. Eastridge BJ, Mabry RL, Seguin P, et al. Death on the battlefield (2001–2011): Implications for the future of combat casualty care. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73(6 Suppl 5):S431–437. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182755dcc
  8. Berran PJ, Mazuchowski EL, Marzouk A, Harcke HT. Observational case series: An algorithm incorporating multidetector computerized tomography in the medicolegal investigation of human remains after a natural disaster. J Forensic Sci. 2014;59(4):1121–1125. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12422
  9. Baglivo M, Winklhofer S, Hatch GM, et al. The rise of forensic and post-mortem radiology: Analysis of the literature between the year 2000 and 2011. J Forensic Radiol Imaging. 2013;1(1):3–9.
  10. Tumanova UN. Formation and development of postmortem radiological research in the world and in Russia. REJR. 2020;10(4):250–263. (In Russ). doi: 10.21569/2222-7415-2020-10-4-250-263
  11. Arthurs OJ, van Rijn RR, Sebire NJ. Current status of paediatric post-mortem imaging: An ESPR questionnaire-based survey. Pediatr Radiol. 2014;44(3):244–251. doi: 10.1007/s00247-013-2827-6
  12. Shelmerdine SC, Gerrard CY, Rao P, et al. Joint European society of paediatric radiology (ESPR) and international society for forensic radiology and imaging (ISFRI) guidelines: Paediatric postmortem computed tomography imaging protocol. Pediatr Radiol. 2019;49(5):694–701. doi: 10.1007/s00247-018-04340-x
  13. Whitby E, Offiah AC, Shelmerdine SC, et al. Current state of perinatal postmortem magnetic resonance imaging: European society of paediatric radiology questionnaire-based survey and recommendations. Pediatr Radiol. 2021;51(5):792–799. doi: 10.1007/s00247-020-04905-9
  14. Chambers G, Shelmerdine SC, Aertsen M, et al. Current and future funding streams for paediatric postmortem imaging: European society of paediatric radiology survey results. Pediatr Radiol. 2023;53(2):273–281. doi: 10.1007/s00247-022-05485-6
  15. Rutty GN, Swift B. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in determining cause of sudden death in adults: Comparison with conventional autopsy. Histopathology. 2004;44(2):187–189. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2004.01741.x
  16. O’Donnell C, Rotman A, Collett S, Woodford N. Current status of routine post-mortem CT in Melbourne, Australia. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2007;3(3):226–232. doi: 10.1007/s12024-007-9006-8
  17. Van Rijn RR, Beek EJ, van de Putte EM, et al. The value of postmortem computed tomography in paediatric natural cause of death: A Dutch observational study. Pediatr Radiol. 2017;47(11):1514–1522. doi: 10.1007/s00247-017-3911-0
  18. Halikov AD, Alexandrov DZ, Trofimova TN, et al. Virtual autopsy of a stillborn with Cantrell’s pentad. Neurosurgery Neurology Childhood. 2009;(1):14–19. (In Russ).
  19. Byval’tsev VA, Stepanov IA, Semenov AV, et al. The possibilities for diagnostics of prescription of death coming based on the changes in the lumbar intervertebral disks (the comparison of the morphological, immunohistochemical and topographical findings). Forensic Medical Examination. 2017;(4):4–8. (In Russ). doi: 10.17116/sudmed20176044-8
  20. Borshchevskaya VN, Solonkina AD, Globa IV. Postmortem computed tomographic diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in the practice of a forensic medical expert (pilot study). In: Materials of the II Scientific and practical conference of the Interregional Thanatoradiological Society “Radiation diagnostics for pathological anatomy and forensic medical examination: from lifetime to postmortem”, 7–8 October. Moscow; 2022. Р. 118–121. (In Russ). doi: 10.54182/9785988117094_2022_118
  21. Tumanova UN, Fedoseeva VK, Liapin VM, et al. Postmortem computed tomography of stillborn with bone pathology. Medical imaging. 2013;(5):110–120. (In Russ).
  22. Tumanova UN, Shchegolev AI. The role and place of thanatoradiological studies in the pathological examination of fetuses and newborns. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2022;173(6):691–705. doi: 10.1007/s10517-022-05615-y
  23. Klevno VA, Chumakova YV, Dubrova SE. Forensic medical examination and post-mortem computed tomography in case of death from mechanical asphyxia: Diagnostic difficulties. Forensic Medicine. 2019;(S1):54. (In Russ).
  24. Klevno VA, Chumakova YV. Virtopsy: New method of research in national practice of forensic medicine. Forensic Medicine. 2019;5(2):27–31. (In Russ). doi: 10.19048/2411-8729-2019-5-2-27-31
  25. Shchegolev AI, Tumanova UN. II Scientific and practical conference of the Interregional Thanatoradiological Society “Radiological diagnostics for pathological anatomy and forensic medicine: From lifetime to postmortem”. Forensic Medicine. 2022;8(4):105–110. (In Russ). doi: 10.17816/fm759
  26. Medvedev II. Fundamentals of pathoanatomical technology. 3nd revised and updated. Moscow: Medicine; 1969. 288 р. (In Russ).
  27. Tumanova UN, Fedoseeva VK, Lyapin VM, et al. Acardiac fetus: Postmortem computed and magnetic resonance tomography imaging. Diagnostic Int Radiol. 2016;10(2):23–30. (In Russ).
  28. Tumanova UN, Lyapin VM, Burov AA, et al. VACTERL association of newborn: Postmortem ct and mri imaging for autopsy. REJR. 2017;7(2):191–208. (In Russ). doi: 10.21569/2222-7415-2017-7-2-191-208
  29. Kokov LS, Kinle AF, Sinitsyn VY, Filimonov BA. Possibilities of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in forensic medical examination of mechanical trauma and sudden death (a literature review). Emergency medical care. N.V. Sklifosovsky Magazine. 2015;(2):16–26. (In Russ).
  30. Kovalev AV, Kinle AF, Kokov LS, et al. Actual possibilities of postmortem imaging in forensic medicine practice. Consilium Medicum. 2016;18(13):9–25. (In Russ).
  31. Roberts IS, Benamore RE, Benbow EW, et al. Post-mortem imaging as an alternative to autopsy in the diagnosis of adult deaths: A validation study. Lancet. 2012;379(9811):136–142. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61483-9
  32. Wijetunga C, O’Donnell C, So TY, et al. Injury detection in traumatic death: Postmortem computed tomography vs open autopsy. Forensic Imaging. 2020;(20):100349. doi: 10.1016/j.jofri.2019.100349
  33. Proisy M, Marchand AJ, Loget P, et al. Whole-body post-mortem computed tomography compared with autopsy in the investigation of unexpected death in infants and children. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(6):1711–1719. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2738-1
  34. Sieswerda-Hoogendoorn T, Soerdjbalie-Maikoe V, de Bakker H, van Rijn RR. Postmortem CT compared to autopsy in children; Concordance in a forensic setting. Int J Legal Med. 2014;128(6):957–965. doi: 10.1007/s00414-014-0964-6
  35. Krentz BV, Alamo L, Grimm J, et al. Performance of post-mortem CT compared to autopsy in children. Int J Legal Med. 2016;130(4):1089–1099. doi: 10.1007/s00414-016-1370-z
  36. Arthurs OJ, Guy A, Thayyil S, et al. Comparison of diagnostic performance for perinatal and paediatric post-mortem imaging: CT versus MRI. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(7):2327–2336. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4057-9
  37. Whitby EH, Variend S, Rutter S, et al. Corroboration of in utero MRI using post-mortem MRI and autopsy in foetuses with CNS abnormalities. Clin Radiol. 2004;59(12):1114–1120. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2004.04.018
  38. Tumanova UN, Serova NS, Shchegolev AI. Use of the postmortem MRI for the cerebral lesions diagnosis in the fetuses and newborns. REJR. 2017;7(3):8–22. (In Russ). doi: 10.21569/2222-7415-2017-7-3-8-22
  39. Tumanova UN, Lyapin VM, Bychenko VG, et al. Postmortem magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of congenital pneumonia. Bulletin Russ State Med University. 2016;(4):44–50. (In Russ).
  40. Tumanova UN, Serova NS, Bychenko VG, Shchegolev AI. Possibilities of postmortem radiological studies for evaluation of lung lesions. REJR. 2018;8(2):198–221. (In Russ). doi: 10.21569/2222-7415-2018-8-2-198-221
  41. Tumanova UN, Lyapin VM, Bychenko VG, et al. Potentialities of postmortem magnetic resonance imaging for identification of live birth and stillbirth. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2019;167(6):823–826. doi: 10.1007/s10517-019-04631-9
  42. Tumanova UN, Lyapin VM, Bychenko VG, et al. Postmortem MRI characteristics of nonimmune fetal hydrops. REJR. 2018;8(4):172–183. (In Russ). doi: 10.21569/2222-7415-2018-8-4-172-18
  43. Tumanova UN, Lyapin VM, Bychenko VG, et al. Possibilities of postmortem magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of anasarca in newborns. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2019;166(5):671–675. doi: 10.1007/s10517-019-04415-1
  44. Thayyil S, Sebire NJ, Chitty LS, et al. Post-mortem MRI versus conventional autopsy in fetuses and children: A prospective validation study. Lancet. 2013;382(9888):223–233. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60134-8
  45. Grabherr S, Heinemann A, Vogel H, et al. Postmortem CT angiography compared with autopsy: A forensic multicenter study. Radiology. 2018;288(1):270–276. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018170559
  46. Tumanova UN, Lyapin VM, Bychenko VG, et al. Postmortem computed tomography angiography of newborns. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2020;170(2):268–274. doi: 10.1007/s10517-020-05049-4
  47. Ben-Sasi K, Chitty LS, Franck LS, et al. Acceptability of a minimally invasive perinatal/paediatric autopsy: Healthcare professionals’ views and implications for practice. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(4):307–312. doi: 10.1002/pd.4077
  48. Blokker BM, Weustink AC, Wagensveld IM, et al. Conventional autopsy versus minimally invasive autopsy with postmortem MRI, CT, and CT-guided biopsy: Comparison of diagnostic performance. Radiology. 2018;289(3):658–667. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180924
  49. Shchegolev AI, Tumanova UN. Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in deceased patients and safe handling of infected bodies. Bulletin of RSMU. 2021;(3):5–11. doi: 10.24075/brsmu.2021.029
  50. Raviraj KG, Shobhana SS, Raviraj KG, et al. Findings and inferences from full autopsies, minimally invasive autopsies and biopsy studies in patients who died as a result of COVID19: A systematic review. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2022;18(3):369–381. doi: 10.1007/s12024-022-00494-1
  51. Tumanova UN, Shchegolev AI, Kovalev AV. Technical and methodological support for postmortem radiation examinations in the pathological departments and the forensic bureau. Forensic Medical Examination. 2021;64(2):51–57. (In Russ). doi: 10.17116/sudmed20216402151
  52. Tumanova UN, Fedoseeva VK, Lyapin VM, et al. Identification of gas accumulations in the bodies of fetuses, still-borns and dead newborns at postmortem computed tomography study. Consilium Medicum. 2016;18(13):26–33. (In Russ).
  53. Tumanova UN, Lyapin VM, Shchegolev AI, et al. Epignatus of a newborn: Postmortem CT and MRI imaging for autopsy. REJR. 2017;7(4):90–107. (In Russ). doi: 10.21569/2222-7415-2017-7-4-90-107
  54. Tumanova UN, Lyapin VM, Kozlova AV, et al. Galen vein aneurysm in a newborn: Postmortem MSCT with contrast enhancement of vessels within the autopsy. REJR. 2019;9(2):260–274. (In Russ). doi: 10.21569/2222-7415-2019-9-2-260-274
  55. Poulsen K, Simonsen J. Computed tomography as routine in connection with medico-legal autopsies. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;171(2-3):190–197. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.05.041
  56. Fetisov VA. Advantages and disadvantages of CT scanners and their placement options for postmortem cross-sectional imaging (UK specialists experience). Consilium Medicum. 2016;18(13):34–37. (In Russ).
  57. Fernandes F, Castillo P, Bassat Q, et al. Contribution of the clinical information to the accuracy of the minimally invasive and the complete diagnostic autopsy. Hum Pathol. 2019;(85):184–193. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.10.037
  58. Spiridonov VA. To the question of the development of virtual autopsy in Russia, or what to do? Forensic Medicine. 2016;(2):93–94. (In Russ).
  59. Dubrova SE, Filimonov BA. Postmortem computed tomography and its features: What should clinical radiologists know? Consilium Medicum. 2016;18(13):38–47. (In Russ).
  60. Shchegolev AI, Tumanova UN, Lyapin VM. Pathological estimation of the time of fetal death. Pathology Archive. 2017;79(6):60–65. (In Russ). doi: 10.17116/patol201779660-65
  61. Tumanova UN, Shchegolev AI, Kovalev AV. Organization of postmortem radiological examination in the structure of pathological departments and forensic bureaus. Forensic Medical Examination. 2021;64(1):57–63. (In Russ). doi: 10.17116/sudmed20216401157

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2023 Eco-Vector

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».