Macroscopical, Microscopical, and Laboratory Findings in Drowning Victims

Lunetta, Philippe; Modell, Jerome H.

doi:10.1007/978-1-59259-910-3_1

Cited by 65 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 193 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiple mechanisms have been proposed for the formation of froth, including breath-holding, introduction of fluid into the respiratory tract, and the interaction between pressure, edema, and residual air (Lunetta & Modell 2005, Jepson et al 2013. Detection of froth can also be difficult due to its disappearance during the decomposition process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Detection of froth can also be difficult due to its disappearance during the decomposition process. Human forensic literature reports the detection of froth in only 17.3% of suspected drowning cases (Lunetta & Modell 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, some regions are confronted with large numbers of stranded animals with non-specific post mortem findings. Currently, there is no established pathognomonic finding associated with drowning which can exclude other causes of death (Lunetta & Modell 2005, Piette & De Letter 2006. This can confound our ability to quantify and identify marine mammal bycatch and complicates identification of gear or practices that may make a fishery more prone to bycatch: fisheries are very complex in terms of gear and techniques, and are constantly changing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, there is no established pathognomonic lesion for drowning (Lunetta & Modell 2005, Piette & De Letter 2006. As in human forensic pathology, the history and necropsy findings in marine mammals are important criteria in reaching a diagnosis of PUE.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Discrimination between bycatch and other causes of cetacean and pinniped stranding

Quirós¹,

Hartwick²,

Rotstein³

et al. 2018

Dis. Aquat. Org.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The challenge of identifying cause of death in discarded bycaught marine mammals stems from a combination of the non-specific nature of the lesions of drowning, the complex physiologic adaptations unique to breath-holding marine mammals, lack of case histories, and the diverse nature of fishing gear. While no pathognomonic lesions are recognized, signs of acute external entanglement, bulging or reddened eyes, recently ingested gastric contents, pulmonary changes, and decompression-associated gas bubbles have been identified in the condition of peracute underwater entrapment (PUE) syndrome in previous studies of marine mammals. We reviewed the gross necropsy and histopathology reports of 36 cetaceans and pinnipeds including 20 directly observed bycaught and 16 live stranded animals that were euthanized between 2005 and 2011 for lesions consistent with PUE. We identified 5 criteria which present at significantly higher rates in bycaught marine mammals: external signs of acute entanglement, red or bulging eyes, recently ingested gastric contents, multi-organ congestion, and disseminated gas bubbles detected grossly during the necropsy and histologically. In contrast, froth in the trachea or primary bronchi, and lung changes (i.e. wet, heavy, froth, edema, congestion, and hemorrhage) were poor indicators of PUE. This is the first study that provides insight into the different published parameters for PUE in bycatch. For regions frequently confronted by stranded marine mammals with non-specific lesions, this could potentially aid in the investigation and quantification of marine fisheries interactions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Discrimination between bycatch and other causes of cetacean and pinniped stranding

Quirós¹,

Hartwick²,

Rotstein³

et al. 2018

Dis. Aquat. Org.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7 The central mechanism of drowning is rapid and persistent hypoxemia following the introduction of liquid at the entrance of the airway. 17,40,46,53,56,72 Arterial oxygen decreases immediately, 17,39,56 and is accompanied by acidosis and hypercarbia, although the arterial levels of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) are considerably below 17,56 the 95 mm of mercury required for CO 2 -induced narcosis. 21,45,56 It is for these reasons that drowning is not considered an acceptable method of euthanasia by the American Veterinary Medical Association 41 and others 4,45 and is considered inhumane.…”

Section: The Process and Mechanism Of Drowningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Veterinary Forensic Pathology

McEwen

Gerdin²

2016

Vet Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining the cause of death in animals recovered from bodies of water, swimming pools, or other water-containing vessels is challenging. Animals recovered from water may or may not have drowned. The diagnosis of drowning is usually one of exclusion, requiring information from the crime scene, recovery scene, the medical history or reliable witness accounts. While there are characteristic macroscopic and microscopic lesions of drowning, none are specific and are dependent on the volume and tonicity of the drowning medium. Beyond interpreting the postmortem findings, the court may ask pathologists to comment on the behavioral and welfare implications of drowning. This requires an understanding of the drowning process, which is a complex series of sequential, concurrent, and overlapping cardiorespiratory reflexes, electrolyte and blood gas abnormalities, aspiration, physical exhaustion, and breathlessness eventually culminating in death. This review addresses the mechanisms, lesions, and diagnostic issues associated with drowning in nonaquatic companion animals.

show abstract