Differences between postmortem computed tomography and conventional autopsy in a stabbing murder case

Authors

  • Talita Zerbini Instituto de Medical Legal de São Paulo
  • Luiz Fernando Ferraz da Silva Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo; Department of Pathology
  • Antonio Carlos Gonçalves Ferro Instituto de Medical Legal de São Paulo
  • Fernando Uliana Kay Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo; Department of Radiology
  • Edson Amaro Junior Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo; Department of Radiology
  • Carlos Augusto Gonçalves Pasqualucci Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo; Department of Pathology
  • Paulo Hilario do Nascimento Saldiva Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo; Department of Pathology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2014(10)06

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the present work is to analyze the differences and similarities between the elements of a conventional autopsy and images obtained from postmortem computed tomography in a case of a homicide stab wound. Method: Comparison between the findings of different methods: autopsy and postmortem computed tomography. Results: In some aspects, autopsy is still superior to imaging, especially in relation to external examination and the description of lesion vitality. However, the findings of gas embolism, pneumothorax and pulmonary emphysema and the relationship between the internal path of the instrument of aggression and the entry wound are better demonstrated by postmortem computed tomography. Conclusions: Although multislice computed tomography has greater accuracy than autopsy, we believe that the conventional autopsy method is fundamental for providing evidence in criminal investigations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2014-12-01

Issue

Section

Clinical Sciences

How to Cite

Differences between postmortem computed tomography and conventional autopsy in a stabbing murder case . (2014). Clinics, 69(10), 683-687. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2014(10)06