Forensic exploitation of patterned injuries: Promoting structured analysis as an early assessment for comparison process.

Practice at our Center shows that approach using 3D surface imaging for morphometric comparison of patterned injuries does not always lead to accurate conclusions. We decided to evaluate whether a selection protocol focused on analysis phase could enable us to form an early assessment of the outcome of a comparison process, and then to select lesions likely to lead to a probative conclusion. 23 blunt objects were used to create 65 patterned injuries on an experimental model simulating human skin. A blinded analysis and a comparison were conducted on photographs and 3D models of the lesions. Statement of analysis phase was consistent with comparison results in most cases, enabling correct identification of the responsible object or at least keeping it as possibly responsible among 2 to 3 objects. Our protocol has been demonstrated to improve ability to exploit patterned injuries from surface imaging, despite certain limiting factors.

An exploratory study toward the contribution of 3D surface scanning for association of an injury with its causing instrument.

3D surface scanning is a technique brought forward for wound documentation and analysis in order to identify injury-causing tools in legal medicine and forensic science. Although many case reports have been published, little is known about the methodology employed by the authors. The study reported here is exploratory in nature, and its main purpose was to get a first evaluation of the ability of an operator, by means of 3D surface scanning and following a simple methodology, to correctly exclude or associate an incriminated tool as the source of a mock wound. Based on these results, an assessment of the possibility to define a structured methodology that could be suitable for this use was proposed. Blunt tools were used to produce 'wounds' on watermelons. Both wounds and tools were scanned with a non-contact optical surface 3D digitising system. Analysis of the obtained 3D models of wounds and tools was undertaken separately. This analytical phase was followed by a qualitative and a quantitative comparison. Results showed that in more than half of the cases, we obtained a correct association but the prevalence of wrong association was still high due to mark deformation and other limitations. Even if the findings of this exploratory study cannot be generalised, they suggest that the simple and direct comparison process is not reliable enough for a systematic routine application. The article highlights the importance of an analysis phase preceding the comparison step. Limitations of the technique, ensuring needs and possible paths for improvement are also expounded.

Autopsy case of aortic dissection after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

Aortic dissection is one of the severe but rare vascular complications arising from transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This paper presents an autopsy case of an 81-year-old male patient with delayed aortic dissection with underlying haemorrhages and acute inflammation 3 years after TAVI.

CT-scan vs. 3D surface scanning of a skull: first considerations regarding reproducibility issues.

Three-dimensional surface scanning (3DSS) and multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) are two techniques that are used in legal medicine for digitalizing objects, a body or body parts such as bones. While these techniques are more and more commonly employed, surprisingly little information is known about the quality rendering of digitalized three-dimensional (3D) models provided by each of them. This paper presents findings related to the measurement precision of 3D models obtained through observation of a study case, where a fractured skull reconstructed by an anthropologist was digitalized using both post-mortem imaging methods. Computed tomography (CT) scans were performed using an 8-row MDCT unit with two different slice thicknesses. The variability of 3D CT models superimposition allowed to assess the reproducibility and robustness of this digitalization technique. Furthermore, two 3D surface scans were done using a professional high resolution 3D digitizer. The comparison of 3D CT-scans with 3D surface scans by superimposition demonstrated several regions with significant differences in topology (average difference between +1.45 and -1.22 mm). When comparing the reproducibility between these two digitalizing techniques, it appeared that MDCT 3D models led in general to greater variability for measurement precision between scanned surfaces. Also, the reproducibility was better achieved with the 3D surface digitizer, showing 3D models with fewer and less pronounced differences (from +0.32 to -0.31 mm). These experiments suggest that MDCT provides less reproducible body models than 3D surface scanning. But further studies must be undertaken in order to corroborate this first impression, and possibly explain the reason for these findings.