评估人体尸体的放射学图像:不同的防腐溶液有影响吗?

Joy Y. Balta , Maria Twomey , Fiachra Moloney , Owen J. O’Connor , Kevin P. Murphy , Michael Cronin , John F. Cryan , Michael M. Maher , Siobhain M. O’Mahony
{"title":"评估人体尸体的放射学图像:不同的防腐溶液有影响吗?","authors":"Joy Y. Balta ,&nbsp;Maria Twomey ,&nbsp;Fiachra Moloney ,&nbsp;Owen J. O’Connor ,&nbsp;Kevin P. Murphy ,&nbsp;Michael Cronin ,&nbsp;John F. Cryan ,&nbsp;Michael M. Maher ,&nbsp;Siobhain M. O’Mahony","doi":"10.1016/j.jofri.2017.08.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of different embalming solutions including formalin, Genelyn, Thiel and Imperial College London- Soft Preserving solutions on the quality of radiological images taken from cadavers embalmed with the above mentioned techniques.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Two cadavers per embalming technique were imaged pre and post-embalming using three different imaging modalities including ultrasound, plain radiography and computed tomography (CT). Imaging criteria and a qualitative grading system for each imaging modality were adapted from the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography, the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images, and according to the AIUM Practice Guideline for the performance of ultrasound. Qualitative analysis was performed independently by three readers on a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS). The readers were blinded to both the embalmment status and the embalming agent used to preclude bias.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>On comparison of images pre and post-embalming, brain CT images showed a significant deterioration in image quality post-embalming, while there was no significant change in chest and abdomen/pelvic images and some improvement was observed in Genelyn embalmed cadavers. No changes were observed when using ultrasound to image the spleen and aorta, while a significant improvement in image quality was observed when examining the kidney in all embalmed cadavers with a small improvement when imaging the liver. No significant difference was observed on plain radiography post-embalming, while a minor deterioration was observed mainly in the chest area.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Different embalming techniques had varying effects on image quality, in human cadavers, with the range of imaging modalities investigated in this study. Thus, no ideal embalming solution was identified, which would improve the quality of images on all imaging modalities. Further research is required to compare the quality of radiological images at different stages of decomposition taking into consideration antemortal pathologies with a larger number of donors.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45371,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jofri.2017.08.005","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing radiological images of human cadavers: Is there an effect of different embalming solutions?\",\"authors\":\"Joy Y. Balta ,&nbsp;Maria Twomey ,&nbsp;Fiachra Moloney ,&nbsp;Owen J. O’Connor ,&nbsp;Kevin P. Murphy ,&nbsp;Michael Cronin ,&nbsp;John F. Cryan ,&nbsp;Michael M. Maher ,&nbsp;Siobhain M. O’Mahony\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jofri.2017.08.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of different embalming solutions including formalin, Genelyn, Thiel and Imperial College London- Soft Preserving solutions on the quality of radiological images taken from cadavers embalmed with the above mentioned techniques.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Two cadavers per embalming technique were imaged pre and post-embalming using three different imaging modalities including ultrasound, plain radiography and computed tomography (CT). Imaging criteria and a qualitative grading system for each imaging modality were adapted from the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography, the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images, and according to the AIUM Practice Guideline for the performance of ultrasound. Qualitative analysis was performed independently by three readers on a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS). The readers were blinded to both the embalmment status and the embalming agent used to preclude bias.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>On comparison of images pre and post-embalming, brain CT images showed a significant deterioration in image quality post-embalming, while there was no significant change in chest and abdomen/pelvic images and some improvement was observed in Genelyn embalmed cadavers. No changes were observed when using ultrasound to image the spleen and aorta, while a significant improvement in image quality was observed when examining the kidney in all embalmed cadavers with a small improvement when imaging the liver. No significant difference was observed on plain radiography post-embalming, while a minor deterioration was observed mainly in the chest area.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Different embalming techniques had varying effects on image quality, in human cadavers, with the range of imaging modalities investigated in this study. Thus, no ideal embalming solution was identified, which would improve the quality of images on all imaging modalities. Further research is required to compare the quality of radiological images at different stages of decomposition taking into consideration antemortal pathologies with a larger number of donors.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45371,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jofri.2017.08.005\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212478017300564\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212478017300564","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

目的本研究的目的是探讨不同的防腐液,包括福尔马林,Genelyn, Thiel和伦敦帝国理工学院软保存液对用上述技术防腐的尸体所拍摄的放射图像质量的影响。材料与方法采用三种不同的成像方式,包括超声、x线平片和计算机断层扫描(CT),对两具尸体进行防腐前后成像。每种成像方式的成像标准和定性分级系统改编自《欧洲计算机断层成像质量标准指南》、《欧洲放射诊断图像质量标准指南》,并根据AIUM超声性能实践指南。定性分析是由三名读者独立进行的图片存档和通信系统(PACS)。为了避免偏见,读者对防腐状态和防腐剂都是不知情的。结果经防腐处理前后的图像比较,脑CT图像显示防腐处理后图像质量明显下降,而胸部和腹部/骨盆图像无明显变化,Genelyn尸体防腐处理后图像质量有所改善。在使用超声成像脾脏和主动脉时,没有观察到任何变化,而在检查所有防腐尸体的肾脏时,观察到图像质量有显着改善,在成像肝脏时略有改善。防腐处理后的x线平片无明显差异,而主要在胸部区域观察到轻微恶化。结论不同的防腐技术对人体尸体的图像质量有不同的影响,本研究探讨了不同的成像方式。因此,没有理想的防腐溶液被确定,这将提高所有成像方式的图像质量。考虑到大量供体的临终病理学,需要进一步的研究来比较不同分解阶段的放射图像质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing radiological images of human cadavers: Is there an effect of different embalming solutions?

Objectives

The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of different embalming solutions including formalin, Genelyn, Thiel and Imperial College London- Soft Preserving solutions on the quality of radiological images taken from cadavers embalmed with the above mentioned techniques.

Materials and methods

Two cadavers per embalming technique were imaged pre and post-embalming using three different imaging modalities including ultrasound, plain radiography and computed tomography (CT). Imaging criteria and a qualitative grading system for each imaging modality were adapted from the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography, the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images, and according to the AIUM Practice Guideline for the performance of ultrasound. Qualitative analysis was performed independently by three readers on a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS). The readers were blinded to both the embalmment status and the embalming agent used to preclude bias.

Results

On comparison of images pre and post-embalming, brain CT images showed a significant deterioration in image quality post-embalming, while there was no significant change in chest and abdomen/pelvic images and some improvement was observed in Genelyn embalmed cadavers. No changes were observed when using ultrasound to image the spleen and aorta, while a significant improvement in image quality was observed when examining the kidney in all embalmed cadavers with a small improvement when imaging the liver. No significant difference was observed on plain radiography post-embalming, while a minor deterioration was observed mainly in the chest area.

Conclusion

Different embalming techniques had varying effects on image quality, in human cadavers, with the range of imaging modalities investigated in this study. Thus, no ideal embalming solution was identified, which would improve the quality of images on all imaging modalities. Further research is required to compare the quality of radiological images at different stages of decomposition taking into consideration antemortal pathologies with a larger number of donors.

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
Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging
Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信