Citation

Chatelain D, Hebert A, Trouillet N, Charfi S, Stephens P, Manaouil C, Defouilloy C, Braconnier L, Jardé O, Sevestre H. Ann. Pathol. 2012; 32(1): 4-13.

Vernacular Title

Interet de l'analyse anatomopathologique dans une serie de 400 autopsies

Affiliation

Service d'anatomie pathologique, CHU d'Amiens, place Victor-Pauchet, 80054 Amiens cedex 01, France.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, Masson Editeur)

DOI

10.1016/j.annpat.2011.10.011

PMID

22325309

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the usefulness of histopathologic examination in forensic autopsies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All consecutive pathological reports and slides from forensic autopsies performed in our department since 2006 have been reviewed. RESULTS: Four hundred forensic necropsies were reviewed. In only 150 cases (38%), pathologists had data about manner of death and gross autopsy findings. Major diagnoses, related to death, and unsuspected by forensic pathologists, were discovered in 83 cases (21%): in 48 cases (12%) gross examination of the heart, lungs and liver showed gross diagnoses missed by the forensic pathologists, and in only 35 cases (9%) microscopic examination revealed a major unsuspected diagnosis (in brain, heart, lungs, liver, kidney and pancreas specimens). In 213 cases (53%), histopathologic examination confirmed gross autopsy findings and allowed to date some wounds. In 104 cases (26%), microscopic examination was not contributory. CONCLUSION: Microscopic examination revealed major diagnoses in less than 10% of forensic autopsies. Its effectiveness is limited for homicides and suicides. Systematic microscopic examination of numerous organs is often useless and should be limited to cases with no anatomic causes of death. Our study emphasizes the need for a better communication between forensic pathologists and histopathologists, and for a better training of some forensic pathologists for gross examination.

Language: fr