Acceptability of a minimally invasive perinatal/paediatric autopsy: Healthcare professionals' views and implications for practice

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 307-312

  Ben Sasi, K ^a   Chitty, L S ^a   Franck, L S ^a   Thayyil, S ^a   Judge Kronis, L ^a   Taylor, A M ^a   Sebire, N J ^a  

^a GREAT ORMOND STREET HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOPSY; ETHNICITY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE AUTOPSY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE PROCEDURE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PARENTAL CONSENT; PERINATAL DEATH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIGION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AUTOPSY; CHILD; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84875675516     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.4077     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Burton JL, Underwood J. Clinical, educational, and epidemiological value of autopsy. Lancet 2007;369:1471-80.
2. Gordijn SJ, Erwich JJ, Khong TY. Value of the perinatal autopsy: critique. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2002;5:480-8.
3. Khong TY, Tanner AR. Foetal and neonatal autopsy rates and use of tissue for research: the influence of 'organ retention' controversy and new consent process. J Paediatr Child Health 2006;42:366-9.
4. Shojania KG, Burton EC. The vanishing non-forensic autopsy. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:873-5.
5. http://www.uk-sands.org/fileadmin/content/About_Sands/Saving_Babies_Lives_2009.pdf (accessed 7th Sept 2012)
6. http://www.rlcinquiry.org.uk/ (accessed 7th Sept 2012)
7. Rankin J, Wright C, Lind T. Cross-sectional survey of parents' experience and views of the post-mortem examination. BMJ 2002;324:816-8.
8. Sinard JH. Factors affecting autopsy rates, autopsy request rates, and autopsy findings at a large academic medical center. Exp Mol Pathol 2001;70:333-43.
9. Brookes JA, Hall-Craggs MA, Sams VR, Lees WR. Non-invasive perinatal necropsy by magnetic resonance imaging. Lancet 1996;348:1139-41.
10. Thayyil S, Cleary JO, Sebire NJ, et al. Post-mortem examination of human fetuses: a comparison of whole-body high-field MRI at 9.4T with conventional MRI and invasive autopsy. Lancet 2009;374:467-75.
11. Persson A, Lindblom M, Jackowski C. A state-of-the-art pipeline for postmortem CT and MRI visualization: from data acquisition to interactive image interpretation at autopsy. Acta Radiol 2011;52:522-36.
12. Thayyil S, Chitty LS, Robertson NJ, et al. Minimally invasive fetal post-mortem examination using magnetic resonance imaging and computerised tomography: current evidence and practical issues. Prenat Diagn 2010;30:713-8.
13. Sebire NJ, Weber MA, Thayyil S, et al. Minimally invasive perinatal autopsies using magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic post-mortem examination ("keyhole autopsy"): feasibility and initial experience. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012;25:513-8.
14. Cannie M, Votino C, Moerman P, 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.
15. Roberts IS, Benamore RE, Benbow E, et al. Post-mortem imaging as an alternative to autopsy in the diagnosis of adult deaths: a validation study. Lancet 2012;379:136-42.
16. Damore LJ 2nd, Barth RF, Morrison CD, et al. Laparoscopic postmortem examination: a minimally invasive approach to the autopsy. Ann Diagn Pathol 2000;4:95-8.