Sudden unexpected infant deaths (SUID) accounted for 1 in 3 postneonatal deaths in 2010. Sudden infant death syndrome and accidental sleep-related suffocation are among the most frequently reported types of SUID. The causes of these SUID usually are not obvious before a medico-legal investigation and may remain unexplained even after investigation. Lack of consistent investigation practices and an autopsy marker make it difficult to distinguish sudden infant death syndrome from other SUID. Standardized categories might assist in differentiating SUID subtypes and allow for more accurate monitoring of the magnitude of SUID, as well as an enhanced ability to characterize the highest risk groups. To capture information about the extent to which cases are thoroughly investigated and how factors like unsafe sleep may contribute to deaths, CDC created a multistate SUID Case Registry in 2009. As part of the registry, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed a classification system that recognizes the uncertainty about how suffocation or asphyxiation may contribute to death and that accounts for unknown and incomplete information about the death scene and autopsy. This report describes the classification system, including its definitions and decision-making algorithm, and applies the system to 436 US SUID cases that occurred in 2011 and were reported to the registry. These categories, although not replacing official cause-of-death determinations, allow local and state programs to track SUID subtypes, creating a valuable tool to identify gaps in investigation and inform SUID reduction strategies.
Asphyxial games, as played by young adolescents, and going by various names, are not new phenomena. What seems to be different at present is an increase in lethality introduced by the increasing use of ligatures and "playing" the game alone. The authors present a properly certified but insufficiently appreciated case followed 2 years later by 2 closely spaced but unrelated deaths in young adolescent males that made known this practice in New Hampshire youth. Other cases presented to the author from other jurisdictions are reviewed in aggregate. Presented are characteristics of victims of this practice that may help distinguish these deaths from suicidal asphyxia. A relative paucity of literature regarding asphyxial games outside the realm of autoerotic asphyxia gives rise to certification difficulties given the high prevalence of youth suicide.
Background:Cranial vault reconstruction is a complex procedure due to the need for precise 3-dimensional outcomes. Traditionally, the process involves manual bending of calvarial bone and plates. With the advent of virtual surgical planning (VSP), this procedure can be streamlined. Despite the advantages documented in the literature, there have been no case-control studies comparing VSP to traditional open cranial vault reconstruction.Methods:Data were retrospectively collected on patients who underwent craniosynostosis repair during a 7-year period. Information was collected on patient demographics, intraoperative and postoperative factors, and intraoperative surgical time. High-resolution computed tomography scans were used for preoperative planning with engineers when designing osteotomies, bone flaps, and final positioning guides.Results:A total of 66 patients underwent open craniosynostosis reconstruction between 2010 and 2017. There were 35 control (non-VSP) and 28 VSP cases. No difference in age, gender ratios, or number of prior operations was found. Blood loss was similar between the 2 groups. The VSP group had more screws and an increased length of postoperative hospital stay. The length of the operation was shorter in the VSP group for single suture and for multiple suture operations. Operative time decreased as the attending surgeon increased familiarity with the technique.Conclusions:VSP is a valuable tool for craniosynostosis repair. We found VSP decreases surgical time and allows for improved preoperative planning. Although there have been studies on VSP, this is the first large case-control study to be performed on its use in cranial vault remodeling.
OBJECTIVES To quantify and describe variation in cause-of-death certification of sudden unexpected infant deaths (SUIDs) among US medical examiners and coroners. METHODS From January to November 2014, we conducted a nationally representative survey of US medical examiners and coroners who certify infant deaths. Two-stage unequal probability sampling with replacement was used. Medical examiners and coroners were asked to classify SUIDs based on hypothetical scenarios and to describe the evidence considered and investigative procedures used for cause-of-death determination. Frequencies and weighted percentages were calculated. RESULTS Of the 801 surveys mailed, 60% were returned, and 377 were deemed eligible and complete. Medical examiners and coroners classification of infant deaths varied by scenario. For 3 scenarios portraying potential airway obstruction and negative autopsy findings, 61% to 69% classified the death as suffocation/asphyxia. In the last scenario, which portrayed a healthy infant in a safe sleep environment with negative autopsy findings, medical examiners and coroners classified the death as sudden infant death syndrome (38%) and SUID (30%). Reliance on investigative procedures to determine cause varied, but 94% indicated using death scene investigations, 88% full autopsy, 85% toxicology analyses, and 82% medical history review. CONCLUSIONS US medical examiners and coroners apply variable practices to classify and investigate SUID, and thus, they certify the same deaths differently. This variability influences surveillance and research, impacts true understanding of infant mortality causes, and inhibits our ability to accurately monitor and ultimately prevent future deaths. Findings may inform future strategies for promoting standardized practices for SUID classification.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.