Technical and interpretive pitfalls of postmortem CT: Five examples of errors revealed by autopsy

• Published in: Journal of forensic sciences Vol. 67; no. 1; pp. 395 - 403
• Main Authors: Yoshida, Maiko, Makino, Yohsuke, Hoshioka, Yumi, Saito, Naoki, Yamaguchi, Rutsuko, Chiba, Fumiko, Inokuchi, Go, Iwase, Hirotaro
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.01.2022
• Subjects: Autopsies; Autopsy; Cause of Death; Computed tomography; Death; Diagnostic Errors; Errors; Forensic Pathology; forensic radiology; Humans; Image acquisition; Japan; Medical imaging; Medical personnel; misinterpretation; Physicians; Police; Postmortem Changes; postmortem computed tomography; Resuscitation; Textbooks; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; postmortem computed tomography; misinterpretation; forensic radiology; forensic pathology; autopsy; Japan
• ISSN: 0022-1198; 1556-4029; 1556-4029
• DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.14883

Image acquisition of dead bodies, particularly using postmortem computed tomography (PMCT), has become common in forensic investigations worldwide. Meanwhile, in countries such as Japan which have an extremely low rate of autopsy, PMCT is being increasingly used in the clinical field to certify the cause of death (COD) without performing an autopsy or toxicological tests, even in cases of unnatural death. Additionally, these PMCT images are predominantly interpreted by clinical personnel such as emergency physicians or clinicians who are not trained in PMCT interpretation and who work for the police, that is, the so‐called police doctors. Many potential pitfalls associated with the use of PMCT have been previously described in textbooks and published papers, including the pitfalls of not performing a complete forensic pathology investigation, and the use of physicians without appropriate PMCT training to interpret PMCT and direct death investigation and certification. We describe five examples in which apparent misdiagnosis of COD based on PMCT misinterpretation was revealed by autopsy. Here are the five examples of errors: (1) Postmortem changes were misinterpreted as COD, (2) resuscitation effects were misinterpreted as COD, (3) COD was determined after an incomplete examination, (4) fatal findings caused by external origin were wrongly interpreted as ‘of internal origin’ based on PMCT, and (5) non‐fatal findings on PMCT were wrongly interpreted as fatal. Interpretation of PMCT by appropriately trained physicians and an accompanying complete forensic investigation, including autopsy when indicated, is necessary to prevent significant errors in COD determination and related potential adverse medicolegal consequences.