致命的机械窒息:综合法医审查与一个说明性的案例。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Guodong Qin , Pengfei Zhao
{"title":"致命的机械窒息:综合法医审查与一个说明性的案例。","authors":"Guodong Qin ,&nbsp;Pengfei Zhao","doi":"10.1016/j.jflm.2025.102988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Fatal asphyxia is one of the most diagnostically complex categories of sudden death because its macroscopic signs are often subtle, heterogeneous and easily confounded with post-mortem artefacts. We reviewed 38 English-language publications (2000–2025) that contained autopsy-confirmed asphyxial fatalities and re-coded every case into a five-group typology—mechanical, electrical, toxic (chemical), ambient-hypoxia and pathological (endogenous). Recurrent external findings, internal soft-tissue lesions and ancillary toxicological or histochemical markers were extracted, and the literature trends were anchored to day-to-day practice by a single illustrative non-homicidal thoracocervical-compression case from our regional medicolegal institute. Within the pooled dataset, neck compression accounted for 55 % of mechanical fatalities, yet petechial haemorrhages were absent in 38 % of those victims, and potential toxicological co-factors (ethanol, opioids or sedatives) were documented in almost one-third of all cases. These discrepancies expose blind spots in death-scene reconstruction and in the routine dissection of deep cervical tissues. Accordingly, we propose a pragmatic classification framework that forces explicit consideration of scene context, mandates layer-by-layer dissection of the neck and anterior thorax, and incorporates targeted toxicology to resolve ambiguous mechanisms. By integrating narrative evidence with real-world autopsy experience, the review delineates where current diagnostic protocols succeed and where they fail, providing forensic pathologists with a clearer decision pathway when evaluating suspected asphyxial deaths.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic and legal medicine","volume":"116 ","pages":"Article 102988"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fatal mechanical asphyxia: a comprehensive forensic review with an illustrative case\",\"authors\":\"Guodong Qin ,&nbsp;Pengfei Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jflm.2025.102988\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Fatal asphyxia is one of the most diagnostically complex categories of sudden death because its macroscopic signs are often subtle, heterogeneous and easily confounded with post-mortem artefacts. We reviewed 38 English-language publications (2000–2025) that contained autopsy-confirmed asphyxial fatalities and re-coded every case into a five-group typology—mechanical, electrical, toxic (chemical), ambient-hypoxia and pathological (endogenous). Recurrent external findings, internal soft-tissue lesions and ancillary toxicological or histochemical markers were extracted, and the literature trends were anchored to day-to-day practice by a single illustrative non-homicidal thoracocervical-compression case from our regional medicolegal institute. Within the pooled dataset, neck compression accounted for 55 % of mechanical fatalities, yet petechial haemorrhages were absent in 38 % of those victims, and potential toxicological co-factors (ethanol, opioids or sedatives) were documented in almost one-third of all cases. These discrepancies expose blind spots in death-scene reconstruction and in the routine dissection of deep cervical tissues. Accordingly, we propose a pragmatic classification framework that forces explicit consideration of scene context, mandates layer-by-layer dissection of the neck and anterior thorax, and incorporates targeted toxicology to resolve ambiguous mechanisms. By integrating narrative evidence with real-world autopsy experience, the review delineates where current diagnostic protocols succeed and where they fail, providing forensic pathologists with a clearer decision pathway when evaluating suspected asphyxial deaths.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic and legal medicine\",\"volume\":\"116 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102988\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic and legal medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1752928X25001891\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic and legal medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1752928X25001891","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

致死性窒息是诊断上最复杂的猝死类型之一,因为其宏观体征往往是微妙的,异质性的,很容易与死后的假象相混淆。我们回顾了38篇英文出版物(2000-2025年),其中包含尸检证实的窒息死亡病例,并将每个病例重新编码为五组类型-机械,电气,有毒(化学),环境缺氧和病理性(内源性)。我们提取了反复出现的外部表现、内部软组织病变和辅助的毒理学或组织化学标记物,并通过我们地区医学研究所的一个具有说明意义的非杀人性胸颈压迫病例,将文献趋势固定在日常实践中。在合并的数据集中,颈部压迫占机械死亡人数的55%,但38%的受害者没有点状出血,几乎三分之一的病例记录了潜在的毒理学辅助因素(乙醇、阿片类药物或镇静剂)。这些差异暴露了死亡现场重建和常规宫颈深部组织解剖的盲点。因此,我们提出了一个实用的分类框架,强制明确考虑场景背景,要求逐层解剖颈部和前胸,并结合目标毒理学来解决不明确的机制。通过将叙事证据与真实尸检经验相结合,该综述描述了当前诊断方案的成功和失败之处,为法医病理学家在评估疑似窒息死亡时提供了更清晰的决策途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Fatal mechanical asphyxia: a comprehensive forensic review with an illustrative case

Fatal mechanical asphyxia: a comprehensive forensic review with an illustrative case
Fatal asphyxia is one of the most diagnostically complex categories of sudden death because its macroscopic signs are often subtle, heterogeneous and easily confounded with post-mortem artefacts. We reviewed 38 English-language publications (2000–2025) that contained autopsy-confirmed asphyxial fatalities and re-coded every case into a five-group typology—mechanical, electrical, toxic (chemical), ambient-hypoxia and pathological (endogenous). Recurrent external findings, internal soft-tissue lesions and ancillary toxicological or histochemical markers were extracted, and the literature trends were anchored to day-to-day practice by a single illustrative non-homicidal thoracocervical-compression case from our regional medicolegal institute. Within the pooled dataset, neck compression accounted for 55 % of mechanical fatalities, yet petechial haemorrhages were absent in 38 % of those victims, and potential toxicological co-factors (ethanol, opioids or sedatives) were documented in almost one-third of all cases. These discrepancies expose blind spots in death-scene reconstruction and in the routine dissection of deep cervical tissues. Accordingly, we propose a pragmatic classification framework that forces explicit consideration of scene context, mandates layer-by-layer dissection of the neck and anterior thorax, and incorporates targeted toxicology to resolve ambiguous mechanisms. By integrating narrative evidence with real-world autopsy experience, the review delineates where current diagnostic protocols succeed and where they fail, providing forensic pathologists with a clearer decision pathway when evaluating suspected asphyxial deaths.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
106
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine publishes topical articles on aspects of forensic and legal medicine. Specifically the Journal supports research that explores the medical principles of care and forensic assessment of individuals, whether adult or child, in contact with the judicial system. It is a fully peer-review hybrid journal with a broad international perspective. The Journal accepts submissions of original research, review articles, and pertinent case studies, editorials, and commentaries in relevant areas of Forensic and Legal Medicine, Context of Practice, and Education and Training. The Journal adheres to strict publication ethical guidelines, and actively supports a culture of inclusive and representative publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信