In some places, the pathology services are overloaded with post mortems, however you’ll probably find more commonly that pathologists (particularly those in training) are clamouring to do more. For those patients where the disease truly is a mystery, a post-mortem can divulge a great deal of information – if you’ve ever read one of their comprehensive reports you’ll know what I mean. But they aren’t popular – many relatives of patients refuse a post-mortem based on the procedure itself, however the clinician is desperate for an answer – what to do?
And so the advent of a radiologically performed post-mortem. Using a CT or MRI, one would scan the body in a systematic fashion to glean more information. This study from the Lancet compared CT with MRI for post mortem imaging, then with the real world autopsy.
Although CT was better than MRI, it wasn’t comparable to the real world autopsy, particularly for those cases with no definite cause of death.
Interesting article, and worth a read for budding pathologists and radiologists. It’s here.
source | The Lancet
image | euthman