从颅骨和躯干计算机断层扫描的骨折位置和数量区分跌倒和打击。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, LEGAL Forensic Sciences Research Pub Date : 2023-03-09 eCollection Date: 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1093/fsr/owad006
Mélanie Henriques, Bérengère Saliba-Serre, Laurent Martrille, Alain Blum, Kathia Chaumoître, Paulo Donato, Nuno Campos, Eugénia Cunha, Pascal Adalian
{"title":"从颅骨和躯干计算机断层扫描的骨折位置和数量区分跌倒和打击。","authors":"Mélanie Henriques, Bérengère Saliba-Serre, Laurent Martrille, Alain Blum, Kathia Chaumoître, Paulo Donato, Nuno Campos, Eugénia Cunha, Pascal Adalian","doi":"10.1093/fsr/owad006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The distinction between falls and blows is a common and difficult task in forensic sciences. One of the most often used criteria to address this issue is the hat brim line (HBL) rule, which states that fall-related injuries do not lie above the HBL. Some studies, however, have found that the use of HBL rule is not so relevant. This study assesses the aetiologies, the number of fractures, and their location on the skull and the trunk in a sample of 400 individuals aged 20-49 years, which were CT scanned after traumas. This may facilitate the interpretation of such injuries in skeletonized or heavily decomposed bodies in which soft tissues are no longer available. Our aim is to improve the distinction rate between falls and blows by combining several criteria and assessing their predictability. Skeletal lesions were analysed using retrospective CT scans. Cases selected comprise 235 falls and 165 blows. We registered the presence and the number of fractures in 14 skeletal anatomical regions related to the two different aetiologies. We showed that the HBL rule should be used with caution, but there is nevertheless a possibility of discussing the aetiology of blunt fractures. Possibly, parameters like the anatomical location and the number of fractures by region can be used to distinguish falls and blows.</p>","PeriodicalId":45852,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Sciences Research","volume":"8 1","pages":"30-40"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/1d/c3/owad006.PMC10265964.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discrimination between falls and blows from the localization and the number of fractures on computed tomography scans of the skull and the trunk.\",\"authors\":\"Mélanie Henriques, Bérengère Saliba-Serre, Laurent Martrille, Alain Blum, Kathia Chaumoître, Paulo Donato, Nuno Campos, Eugénia Cunha, Pascal Adalian\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/fsr/owad006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The distinction between falls and blows is a common and difficult task in forensic sciences. One of the most often used criteria to address this issue is the hat brim line (HBL) rule, which states that fall-related injuries do not lie above the HBL. Some studies, however, have found that the use of HBL rule is not so relevant. This study assesses the aetiologies, the number of fractures, and their location on the skull and the trunk in a sample of 400 individuals aged 20-49 years, which were CT scanned after traumas. This may facilitate the interpretation of such injuries in skeletonized or heavily decomposed bodies in which soft tissues are no longer available. Our aim is to improve the distinction rate between falls and blows by combining several criteria and assessing their predictability. Skeletal lesions were analysed using retrospective CT scans. Cases selected comprise 235 falls and 165 blows. We registered the presence and the number of fractures in 14 skeletal anatomical regions related to the two different aetiologies. We showed that the HBL rule should be used with caution, but there is nevertheless a possibility of discussing the aetiology of blunt fractures. Possibly, parameters like the anatomical location and the number of fractures by region can be used to distinguish falls and blows.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forensic Sciences Research\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"30-40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/1d/c3/owad006.PMC10265964.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forensic Sciences Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/fsr/owad006\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic Sciences Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fsr/owad006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在法医学中,区分摔伤和击打是一项常见而又困难的工作。解决这一问题最常用的标准之一是帽檐线(HBL)规则,即与跌落有关的伤害不在帽檐线之上。然而,一些研究发现,HBL 规则的使用并不那么相关。本研究以 400 名年龄在 20-49 岁之间的人为样本,评估了创伤后进行 CT 扫描的病因、骨折数量及其在头骨和躯干上的位置。这可能会有助于解释骸骨化或严重腐烂的尸体中的此类损伤,因为其中的软组织已不复存在。我们的目的是通过结合几种标准并评估其可预测性来提高摔伤和击打伤的区分率。我们使用回顾性 CT 扫描对骨骼病变进行了分析。所选病例包括 235 例跌倒和 165 例击打。我们登记了与两种不同病因相关的 14 个骨骼解剖区域的骨折情况和数量。我们的研究表明,应谨慎使用 HBL 规则,但仍有可能讨论钝性骨折的病因。解剖位置和各区域骨折数量等参数有可能用于区分跌倒和打击。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Discrimination between falls and blows from the localization and the number of fractures on computed tomography scans of the skull and the trunk.

The distinction between falls and blows is a common and difficult task in forensic sciences. One of the most often used criteria to address this issue is the hat brim line (HBL) rule, which states that fall-related injuries do not lie above the HBL. Some studies, however, have found that the use of HBL rule is not so relevant. This study assesses the aetiologies, the number of fractures, and their location on the skull and the trunk in a sample of 400 individuals aged 20-49 years, which were CT scanned after traumas. This may facilitate the interpretation of such injuries in skeletonized or heavily decomposed bodies in which soft tissues are no longer available. Our aim is to improve the distinction rate between falls and blows by combining several criteria and assessing their predictability. Skeletal lesions were analysed using retrospective CT scans. Cases selected comprise 235 falls and 165 blows. We registered the presence and the number of fractures in 14 skeletal anatomical regions related to the two different aetiologies. We showed that the HBL rule should be used with caution, but there is nevertheless a possibility of discussing the aetiology of blunt fractures. Possibly, parameters like the anatomical location and the number of fractures by region can be used to distinguish falls and blows.

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
Forensic Sciences Research
Forensic Sciences Research MEDICINE, LEGAL-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
158
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Forensic efficiency and population genetic construction of Guizhou Gelao minority from Southwest China revealed by a panel of 23 autosomal STR loci. Correction to: Metric analysis of the patella for sex estimation in a Portuguese sample. Correction to: Forensic features and phylogenetic structure survey of four populations from southwest China via the autosomal insertion/deletion markers. Correction to: Potential role of the sella turcica X-ray imaging aspects for sex estimation in the field of forensic anthropology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Forensic identification in a multidisciplinary perspective focusing on big challenges.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1