Role of Postmortem Multislice Computed Tomography Scan in Close Blunt Head Injury

Prijo Sidipratomo, Trijono Karmawan Sukana Prija, Bachtiar Murtala, Agus Purwadianto, Gatot Susilo Lawrence


BACKGROUND: Conventional autopsy in Indonesia is not well accepted as it is contrary to religion and culture. New radiological imaging method such as multislice computed tomography (MSCT) scan has potential to be a diagnostic tool in forensic pathology. The purpose of this study is to determine the ability of MSCT scan in finding abnormalities in close blunt head injury compared with autopsy.

METHODS: This study used descriptive qualitative method. Postmortem cases in Department of Forensic Medicine and Radiology of Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital were selected based on inclusion criteria. Then MSCT scan and autopsy were conducted. MSCT scan and autopsy results were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS: There were 491 postmortem cases of blunt head injury. However, only 10 cases fulfilled inclusion criteria. Subarachnoid haemorrhages were identified 100% with MSCT scan and 80% with autopsy. Cerebral oedemas were identified 100% either with MSCT scan and autopsy. Subdural haemorrhages were identified 100% with MSCT scan, while 50% with autopsy. Multiple fractures were identified 80% with MSCT scan, while 40% with auto.

CONCLUSION: MSCT scan showed a sensitive detection in finding abnormalities in close blunt head injury. Therefore it could be as an alternative choice of examination in close blunt head injury cases.

KEYWORDS: multislice computed tomography scan, postmortem, blunt head injury, autopsy

Full Text:



Shojana KG, Burton EC, McDonald KM, Goldman L. Changes in rates autopsy-detected diagnostic errors over time: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003; 289: 2849-56, CrossRef.

Loughrey MB, McCluggage WG, Toner PG. The declining autopsy rate and clinicians’ attitudes. Ulster Med J. 2000; 69: 83-9, PMID.

Mitka M. CT, MRI scans offer new tools for autopsy. JAMA. 2007; 298: 392-3, CrossRef.

Hill RB, Anderson RE. The autopsy: Medical practice and public policy. Boston: Butterworth Publishers; 1988, NLMID.

Roulson J, Benbow EW, Hasleton PS. Discrepancies between clinical and autopsy diagnosis and the value of post mortem histology; a meta-analysis and review. Histopathology. 2005; 47: 551-9, CrossRef.

Chariot P, Witt K, Pautot V, Porcher R, Thomas G, Zafrani ES, et al. Declining autopsy rate in a French hospital: physician's attitudes to the autopsy and use of autopsy material in research publications. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000; 124: 739-45, PMID.

Spiliopoulou C, Papadodima S, Kotakidis N, Koutselinis A. Clinical diagnoses and autopsy findings: A retrospective analysis of 252 cases in Greece. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005; 129: 210-4, PMID.

Combes A, Mokhtari M, Couvelard A, Trouillet JL, Baudot J, Hénin D, et al. Clinical and autopsy diagnoses in the intensive care unit. Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164: 389-92, CrossRef.

Maris C, Martin B, Creteur J, Remmelink M, Piagnerelli M, Salmon I, et al. Comparison of clinical and post-mortem findings in intensive care unit patients. Virchows Arch. 2007; 450: 329-33, CrossRef.

Haber SL. Whither the autopsy? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996; 120: 714-7.

Lundberg GD. College of American Pathologists Conference XXIX on restructuring autopsy practice for health care reform: let's make this autopsy conference matter. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996; 120: 736-8, PMID.

Marwick C. Pathologists request autopsy revival. JAMA. 1995; 273: 1889-91, CrossRef.

Scott K. Is the autopsy dead? ACP News Winter. 2002; 11: 19-21.

Yen K, Lövblad KO, Scheurer E, Ozdoba C, Thali MJ, Aghayev E, et al. Post-mortem forensic neuroimaging: Correlation of MSCT and MRI findings with autopsy results. Forensic Sci Int. 2007; 173: 21-35, CrossRef.

Lawrence GS, Chandra G, Mauluddin, Mathius D, Arkipus, Dase J. Virtual autopsy as an alternative for conventional autopsy in a special conditional situation. Makassar: Forensic Scientific Meeting; 2009.

Prijo S, Chandra G, Lawrence GS. Pemanfaatan CT-scan dalam bidang forensic. Makassar: Kongres Nasional Perhimpunan Dokter Forensik Indonesia; 2010.

Kadarmo DA. Prosedur medikolegal penolakan otopsi ditinjau dari sudut pandang penyidik. Jakarta: Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Indonesia; 2005.

Persson A. Virtual autopsy in forensic medicine. Science. 2008; 4: 60-3.

Vogl TJ, Harth M. Neuroimaging of The Posterior Fossa. Frankfurt: Department of Radiology, University of Frankfurt; [n.y].

Thali MJs, Yen K, Schweitzer W, Vock P, Boesch C, Ozdoba C, 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, PMID.

Perry JJ, Stiell IG, Siviotti ML, Bullard MJ, Emond M, Symington C, et al. Sensitivity of computed tomography performed within six hours of onset of head for diagnosis of subarachnoid haemorrhage: Prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2011; 343: d4277, CrossRef.

Jacobsen C, Bech BH, Lynnerup N. A comparative study of cranial, blunt trauma fractures as seen at medicolegal autopsy and by computed tomography. BMC Med Imaging. 2009; 9: 18, CrossRef.

Patil MA, Vas WF. Pattern of fatal blunt head injury: A two year retrospective/prospective medico legal autopsy study. J Indian Acad Forensic Med. 2010; 32: 144-9, article.

Chattopadhyay S, Tripathi C. Skull fracture and haemorrhage pattern among fatal and nonfatal head injury assault victims-a critical analysis. J Inc Violence Res. 2010; 2: 99-103, CrossRef.


Copyright (c) 2014 The Prodia Education and Research Institute

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


Indexed by:






The Prodia Education and Research Institute