In postmortem examination, it is difficult to diagnose pericardial tamponade in a dead body from the findings of conventional external examination alone. However, ultrasonography is a common diagnostic tool for pericardial tamponade in clinical practice. We studied the postmortem diagnosis of pericardial tamponade at external examination level by applying an ultrasonographic device. The ultrasonographic findings were compared with the conventional autopsy findings. Among 455 cases of forensic autopsy in Hamburg and Tokyo conducted within 5 days after death, we successfully diagnosed 11 cases of pericardial tamponade by ultrasound imaging prior to autopsy, and failed to diagnose pericardial tamponade in only two cases. In addition, 79 cases of external examination conducted at the Tokyo Medicinal Examiner's Office were also examined with ultrasonography, and we diagnosed three cases of pericardial tamponade and five cases of pericardial effusion. The differences in ultrasonographic findings between tamponade and effusion were relatively clear. Although autopsy provides definitive evidence for the cause of death, sometimes autopsy cannot be performed due to some social factors. In such cases, conventional external examination alone cannot establish a cause of death by pericardial tamponade, and application of diagnostic imaging technique will be helpful. While CT and/or MRI may provide more detailed information than ultrasound imaging, these techniques require special equipment, room and specialist, and most of all involves high cost, which is perhaps the most important consideration in the present atmosphere of medical cost containment. On the other hand, the ultrasonographic devices we use are compact, and can be used directly at the scene of death. Postmortem application of ultrasonography may be a valuable adjunct in the work of medical examiners and forensic pathologists.
In postmortem examination, it is difficult to diagnose pericardial tamponade in a dead body from the findings of conventional external examination alone. However, ultrasonography is a common diagnostic tool for pericardial tamponade in clinical practice. We studied the postmortem diagnosis of pericardial tamponade at external examination level by applying an ultrasonographic device. The ultrasonographic findings were compared with the conventional autopsy findings. Among 455 cases of forensic autopsy in Hamburg and Tokyo conducted within 5 days after death, we successfully diagnosed 11 cases of pericardial tamponade by ultrasound imaging prior to autopsy, and failed to diagnose pericardial tamponade in only two cases. In addition, 79 cases of external examination conducted at the Tokyo Medicinal Examiner's Office were also examined with ultrasonography, and we diagnosed three cases of pericardial tamponade and five cases of pericardial effusion. The differences in ultrasonographic findings between tamponade and effusion were relatively clear. Although autopsy provides definitive evidence for the cause of death, sometimes autopsy cannot be performed due to some social factors. In such cases, conventional external examination alone cannot establish a cause of death by pericardial tamponade, and application of diagnostic imaging technique will be helpful. While CT and/or MRI may provide more detailed information than ultrasound imaging, these techniques require special equipment, room and specialist, and most of all involves high cost, which is perhaps the most important consideration in the present atmosphere of medical cost containment. On the other hand, the ultrasonographic devices we use are compact, and can be used directly at the scene of death. Postmortem application of ultrasonography may be a valuable adjunct in the work of medical examiners and forensic pathologists.