A comparative study of cranial, blunt trauma fractures as seen at medicolegal autopsy and by Computed Tomography

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Computed Tomography (CT) has become a widely used supplement to medico legal autopsies at several forensic institutes. Amongst other things, it has proven to be very valuable in visualising fractures of the cranium. Also CT scan data are being used to create head models for biomechanical trauma analysis by Finite Element Analysis. If CT scan data are to be used for creating individual head models for retrograde trauma analysis in the future we need to ascertain how well cranial fractures are captured by CT scan. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic agreement between CT and autopsy regarding cranial fractures and especially the precision with which cranial fractures are recorded.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The autopsy fracture diagnosis was compared to the diagnosis of two CT readings (reconstructed with Multiplanar and Maximum Intensity Projection reconstructions) by registering the fractures on schematic drawings. The extent of the fractures was quantified by merging 3-dimensional datasets from both the autopsy as input by 3D digitizer tracing and CT scan.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The results showed a good diagnostic agreement regarding fractures localised in the posterior fossa, while the fracture diagnosis in the medial and anterior fossa was difficult at the first CT scan reading. The fracture diagnosis improved during the second CT scan reading. Thus using two different CT reconstructions improved diagnosis in the medial fossa and at the impact points in the cranial vault. However, fracture diagnosis in the anterior and medial fossa and of hairline fractures in general still remained difficult.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The study showed that the forensically important fracture systems to a large extent were diagnosed on CT images using Multiplanar and Maximum Intensity Projection reconstructions. Difficulties remained in the minute diagnosis of hairline fractures. These inconsistencies need to be resolved in order to use CT scan data of victims for individual head modelling and trauma analysis.</p

Effective testing of personal protective equipment in blast loading conditions in shock tube: Comparison of three different testing locations

We exposed a headform instrumented with 10 pressure sensors mounted flush with the surface to a shock wave with three nominal intensities: 70, 140 and 210 kPa. The headform was mounted on a Hybrid III neck, in a rigid configuration to eliminate motion and associated pressure variations. We evaluated the effect of the test location by placing the headform inside, at the end and outside of the shock tube. The shock wave intensity gradually decreases the further it travels in the shock tube and the end effect degrades shock wave characteristics, which makes comparison of the results obtained at three locations a difficult task. To resolve these issues, we developed a simple strategy of data reduction: the respective pressure parameters recorded by headform sensors were divided by their equivalents associated with the incident shock wave. As a result, we obtained a comprehensive set of non-dimensional parameters. These non-dimensional parameters (or amplification factors) allow for direct comparison of pressure waveform characteristic parameters generated by a range of incident shock waves differing in intensity and for the headform located in different locations. Using this approach, we found a correlation function which allows prediction of the peak pressure on the headform that depends only on the peak pressure of the incident shock wave (for specific sensor location on the headform), and itis independent on the headform location. We also found a similar relationship for the rise time. However, for the duration and impulse, comparable correlation functions do not exist. These findings using a headform with simplified geometry are baseline values and address a need for the development of standardized parameters for the evaluation of personal protective equipment (PPE) under shock wave loading