Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this study was to assess the impact of arm position in computed tomography (CT) of the clavicle performed for forensic age estimation on clavicular position, image noise, and radiation dose.
Methods and materials
Forty-seven CT scans of the medial clavicular epiphysis performed for forensic age estimation were conducted with either hands and arms held upwards (CTHU, 28 persons) or positioned at the body (CTHD, 19 persons). Presets were identical for both positions (70 mAs/140 kVp; Brilliance iCT, Philips). Each CT scan was reconstructed with an iterative algorithm (i-Dose 4) and evaluated at the middle of the sternoclavicular joint. Clavicular angle was measured on a.p. topograms in relation to a horizontal line. Quantitative image noise was measured in air at the level of medial clavicular epiphysis. Effective dose and scan length were recorded.
Results
Hands-up position compared with hands-down position resulted in a lower lateral body diameter (CTHU 41.1 ± 3.6 cm vs. CTHD 44.6 ± 3.1 cm; P = 0.03), a reduced quantitative image noise (CTHU: 39.5 ± 9.2; CTHD: 46.2 ± 8.3; P = 0.02), and lower CTDIvol (5.1 ± 1.4 mGy vs. 6.7 ± 1.8 mGy; P = 0.001). Scan length was longer in patients examined with hands up (HU: 8.5 ± 3.4 cm; HD: 6.2 ± 2.1 cm; P = 0.006). Mean effective dose for CTHU was 0.79 ± 0.32 mSv compared with 0.95 ± 0.38 mSv in CTHD (P = 0.12). Clavicular angle was 17° ± 6° in patients with hands down and 32° ± 7° in patients with hands up (P < 0.001).
Conclusion
By elevated arm positioning, the image quality of clavicular CT scans can be improved while maintaining radiation dose compared with hands down. Clavicular position differs according to the hand position. Thus, positioning patients with elevated hands is advisable for forensic clavicular CT examinations, but multiplanar CT reconstructions should be adjusted to clavicular position and scan length should be reduced to a minimum.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Reference24 articles.
1. Schmeling A, Reisinger W, Geserick G, Olze A (2005) The current state of forensic age estimation of live subjects for the purpose of criminal prosecution. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 1(4):239–246. https://doi.org/10.1385/FSMP:1:4:239
2. AGFAD (2018) Stellungnahme: Forensische Altersdiagnostik bei unbegleiteten minderjährigen Flüchtlingen. Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forensische Altersdiagnostik. https://www.dgrm.de/institute/deutschland/institut-essen/news-essen/stellungnahme-forensische-altersdiagnostik-bei-unbegleiteten-minderjaehrigen-fluechtlingen/. Accessed 15.5.2020
3. Schmeling A, Grundmann C, Fuhrmann A, Kaatsch HJ, Knell B, Ramsthaler F, Reisinger W, Riepert T, Ritz-Timme S, Rosing FW, Rotzscher K, Geserick G (2008) Criteria for age estimation in living individuals. Int J Legal Med 122(6):457–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-008-0254-2
4. Hermetet C, Saint-Martin P, Gambier A, Ribier L, Sautenet B, Rerolle C (2018) Forensic age estimation using computed tomography of the medial clavicular epiphysis: a systematic review. Int J Legal Med 132(5):1415–1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-018-1847-z
5. Schmeling A, Dettmeyer R, Rudolf E, Vieth V, Geserick G (2016) Forensic age estimation. Dtsch Arztebl Int 113(4):44–50. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2016.0044
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献