Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T14:52:48.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE LESS-INVASIVE PERINATAL AUTOPSY: CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2013

O J ARTHURS ,
A M TAYLOR  and
N J SEBIRE
O J ARTHURS
Affiliation:
Department of Paediatric Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK. Institute of Child Health, UCL, London, UK.
A M TAYLOR
Affiliation:
Cardiorespiratory Unit, UCL Institute of Cardiovascular Science and Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, Great Ormond Street, London, UK.
N J SEBIRE*
Affiliation:
Department of Paediatric Pathology, Camelia Botnar Laboratories, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK. Institute of Child Health, UCL, London, UK.
*
Professor N J Sebire, Department of Paediatric Pathology, Camelia Botnar Laboratories, Great Ormond Street Hospital, Great Ormond Street, London WC1N 3JH, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Full autopsy. A combination of external examination, radiological investigations, evisceration, dissection and subsequent full organ examination with detailed histological evaluation. This is the current “gold standard” of care against which other approaches are compared.

Type
Review Article
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , May 2013 , pp. 45 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH). Perinatal Mortality 2007: United Kingdom, London 2009. http://www.publichealth.hscni.net/publications/perinatal-mortality-2007. Accessed on 18 February 2013.Google Scholar
2Kennedy, I. Learning the lessons: The Department of Health's Response to the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry Report (Kennedy report). Department of Health, 2001. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4002859. Accessed on 18February 2012.Google Scholar
3Redfern, M, Keeling, JW, Powell, E. The Royal Liverpool Children's inquiry report. London: HMSO, 2001. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20111202162649/http://www.rlcinquiry.org.uk. Accessed on 18 February 2012.Google Scholar
4The Chief Medical Officer: The removal, retention and use of human organs and tissues from post mortem examination. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4064942. Accessed on 18 February 2012.Google Scholar
5BBC News, 21 April 2009. Coroners get MRI body scan option. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8009767.stm. Accessed on 18 February 2012.Google Scholar
6Breeze, ACG. Is perinatal post-mortem MRI ready for routine clinical practice? Fetal Maternal Med Rev 2013; 24: 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Thayyil, S, Chandrasekaran, M, Chitty, LS, Wade, A, Skordis-Worrall, J, Bennett-Britton, I, et al.Diagnostic accuracy of post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses, children and adults: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75:e142–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Vogt, C, Blaas, HG, Salvesen, KÅ, Eik-Nes, SH. Comparison between prenatal ultrasound and postmortem findings in fetuses and infants with developmental anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39: 666–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Roberts, IS, Benamore, RE, Benbow, EW, Lee, SH, Harris, JN, Jackson, A, et al.Post-mortem imaging as an alternative to autopsy in the diagnosis of adult deaths: a validation study. Lancet 2012; 379: 136–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Thayyil, S, Sebire, NJ, Chitty, LS, Wade, A, Chong, WK, Olsen, O, et al.for the MARIAS collaborative group. Post-mortem MRI versus conventional autopsy in fetuses and children: a prospective validation study. Lancet 2013 16 May. pii: S0140-6736(13)60134-8. [Epub ahead of print].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Shojania, KG, Burton, EC, McDonald, KM, Goldman, L. Changes in rates of autopsy-detected diagnostic errors over time: a systematic review. JAMA 2003; 289: 2849–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Weber, MA, Pryce, JW, Ashworth, MT, Malone, M, Sebire, NJ. Histological examination in sudden unexpected death in infancy: evidence base for histological sampling. J Clin Pathol 2012; 65: 58–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Sebire, NJ, Weber, MA, Thayyil, S, Mushtaq, I, Taylor, A, Chitty, LS. Minimally invasive perinatal autopsies using magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic postmortem examination (“keyhole autopsy”): feasibility and initial experience. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25: 513–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Sebire, NJ. Towards the minimally invasive autopsy? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28: 865–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Cannie, M, Votino, C, Moerman, P, Vanheste, R, Segers, V, Van Berkel, K, et al.Acceptance, reliability and confidence of diagnosis of fetal and neonatal virtuopsy compared with conventional autopsy: a prospective study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39: 659–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Ben-Sasi, K, Chitty, LS, Franck, LS, Thayyil, S, Judge-Kronis, L, Taylor, AM, et al.Acceptability of a minimally invasive perinatal/paediatric autopsy: healthcare professionals’ views and implications for practice. Prenatal Diagnosis 2013; 33: 307–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Rankin, J, Wright, C, Lind, T. Cross sectional survey of parents’ experience and views of the post mortem examination. BMJ 2002; 324: 816–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Breeze, AC, Jessop, FA, Whitehead, AL, Set, PA, Berman, L, Hackett, GA, et al.Feasibility of percutaneous organ biopsy as part of a minimally invasive perinatal autopsy. Virchows Arch 2008; 452: 201–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Thayyil, S, Schievano, S, Robertson, NJ, Jones, R, Chitty, LS, Sebire, NJ, et al; MaRIAS (Magnetic Resonance Imaging Autopsy Study) Collaborative group. A semi-automated method for non-invasive internal organ weight estimation by post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses, newborns and children. Eur J Radiol 2009; 72: 321–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Votino, C, Verhoye, M, Segers, V, Cannie, M, Bessieres, B, Cos, T, et al.Fetal organ weight estimation by postmortem high-field magnetic resonance imaging before 20 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39: 673–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Prodhomme, O, Seguret, F, Martrille, L, Pidoux, O, Cambonie, G, Couture, A, et al.Organ volume measurements: comparison between MRI and autopsy findings in infants following sudden unexpected death. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2012; 97: F434–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Thayyil, S, Cleary, JO, Sebire, NJ, Scott, RJ, Chong, K, Gunny, R, et al.Post-mortem examination of human fetuses: a comparison of whole-body high-field MRI at 9.4 T with conventional MRI and invasive autopsy. Lancet 2009; 374: 467–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Votino, C, Cannie, M, Segers, V, Dobrescu, O, Dessy, H, Gallo, V, et al.Virtual autopsy by computed tomographic angiography of the fetal heart: a feasibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39: 679–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Votino, C, Jani, J, Verhoye, M, Bessieres, B, Fierens, Y, Segers, V, et al.Postmortem examination of human fetal hearts at or below 20 weeks’ gestation: a comparison of high-field MRI at 9.4 T with lower-field MRI magnets and stereomicroscopic autopsy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40: 437–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25de Crespigny, A, Bou-Reslan, H, Nishimura, MC, Phillips, H, Carano, RA, D'Arceuil, HE. 3D micro-CT imaging of the postmortem brain. Neurosci Methods 2008; 171: 207–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Stephenson, RS, Boyett, MR, Hart, G, Nikolaidou, T, Cai, X, Corno, AF, et al.Contrast enhanced micro-computed tomography resolves the 3-dimensional morphology of the cardiac conduction system in mammalian hearts. PLoS ONE 2012; 7: e35299. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Schievano, S, Migliavacca, F, Coats, L, Khambadkone, S, Carminati, M, Wilson, N, et al.Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation based on rapid prototyping of right ventricular outflow tract and pulmonary trunk from MR data. Radiology 2007; 242: 490–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Schievano, S, Sebire, NJ, Robertson, NJ, Taylor, AM, Thayyil, S. Reconstruction of fetal and infant anatomy using rapid prototyping of post-mortem MR images. Insights Imaging 2010; 1: 281–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Weis, S, Llenos, IC, Dulay, JR, Elashoff, M, Martínez-Murillo, F, Miller, CL. Quality control for microarray analysis of human brain samples: the impact of postmortem factors, RNA characteristics, and histopathology. J Neurosci Methods 2007; 165: 198–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Magdeldin, S, Yamamoto, T. Toward deciphering proteomes of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues. Proteomics 2012; 12: 1045–58. doi:10.1002/pmic.201100550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Bohndiek, SE, Brindle, KM. Imaging and ‘omic’ methods for the molecular diagnosis of cancer. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2010; 10: 417–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Flenady, V, Middleton, P, Smith, GC, Duke, W, Erwich, JJ, Khong, TY, et al.Stillbirths: the way forward in high-income countries. Lancet 2011; 377: 1703–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33Rutty, G. Can cross-sectional imaging as an adjunct and/or alternative to the invasive autopsy be implemented within the NHS? Report from the NHS implementation sub-group of the Department of Health Post Mortem, Forensic and Disaster Imaging Group (PMFDI). October 2012. http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/emfpu/national-documents-1. Accessed on 18 February 2013.Google Scholar
34Maskell, G, Wells, M. RCR/RCPath statement on standards for medico-legal post-mortem cross-sectional imaging in adults. G129. London: The Royal College of Pathologist; 2012.Google Scholar