Comparaison du scanner post-mortem et de l’autopsie pour objectiver les lésions en fonction des différents sites anatomiques

The Importance of Autopsy in a Case of Digestive Perforation Undetected by Postmortem Computed Tomography

“…18 Detection of bone lesions and radiopaque foreign bodies is reliable with this method, and it has excellent sensitivity to detect lethal wounds in cases of craniofacial trauma or gunshot wounds. 19 However, a forensic autopsy would be superior to a CT scan for the detection of soft tissue lesions such as digestive perforations or vascular wounds. 19 Organ perforation can nevertheless be suspected on the basis of a CT scan via indirect signs, such as fluid or gas effusions in the cavities, but it does not always indicate the provenance of gases/fluids within the body.…”

“…19 However, a forensic autopsy would be superior to a CT scan for the detection of soft tissue lesions such as digestive perforations or vascular wounds. 19 Organ perforation can nevertheless be suspected on the basis of a CT scan via indirect signs, such as fluid or gas effusions in the cavities, but it does not always indicate the provenance of gases/fluids within the body. 20 Three-dimensional reconstructions can be produced, to allow for a better understanding of the images, but views should always be read by an experienced radiologist on axial sections.…”

“…At the Institute of Legal Medicine of Strasbourg, a full-body CT scan is performed before each autopsy 18 . Detection of bone lesions and radiopaque foreign bodies is reliable with this method, and it has excellent sensitivity to detect lethal wounds in cases of craniofacial trauma or gunshot wounds 19 . However, a forensic autopsy would be superior to a CT scan for the detection of soft tissue lesions such as digestive perforations or vascular wounds 19 .…”

Descriptive study of autopsies in the Atlantic and Magdalena departments/Estudio descriptivo de las autopsias en los departamentos Atlántico y Magdalena

“…From a medical approach, Hamilton and colleagues ( 2008), (Padubidri, Menezes, Pant, & Shetty, 2013), Lucena, et al, (2009) Newton, Coffin, Clark, & Lowichik, (2004) and Hull, Nazarian, Wheeler, Black-Schaffer, & Mark, (2007), Wong, Chan, Beh, Yau, Yip, & Hawton, (2010); Flach and colleagues, (2014); Mohammed & Kharoshah, (2014); Inokuchi, and colleagues, (2014); Yeow, Mahmud, & Raj, (2014);Matsumoto, Sengoku, Saito, Kakuta, Murayama, & Imafuku, (2014); Ifteni, Correl, Burtea, Kane, & Manu, (2014); Le Blanc-Louvry, Thureau, Lagroy de Croutte, Ledoux, Dacher, & Proust, (2014) and Kodaka, and colleagues, (2014) note that autopsies still remain important to medicine to strengthen the pathologist-internist collaboration and to make clearer diagnosis or unexpected pathologic findings. In exactly this same direction, Burton & Underwood, (2007) state that autopsy has been often underused in modern clinical practice but it is an important procedure with potential to advance medical knowledge and part of its relevance comes from its epidemiological, educational, forensic and clinical value.…”