Skip to main content
Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition logoLink to Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition
. 2003 Nov;88(6):F521–F524. doi: 10.1136/fn.88.6.F521

Diagnostic value of radiography in cases of perinatal death: a population based study

O Olsen, A Espeland, H Maartmann-Moe, R Lachman, K Rosendahl
PMCID: PMC1763230  PMID: 14602703

Abstract

Objective: To examine the yield of radiographic abnormalities in a population based set of perinatal deaths, the diagnostic value of whole body postmortem radiographs in the same set, and previous factors that may increase the proportion of useful examinations.

Design: Retrospective population based study.

Setting: A region of Norway.

Patients: All infants from a well defined geographical area who were stillborn or had died soon after birth over an 11 year period (n=542), who had routinely undergone whole body radiography and autopsy.

Main outcome measures: (a) Proportion of cases with abnormal radiographic findings. (b) Proportion of abnormal radiographs providing new information that was useful for postmortem diagnosis.

Results: Radiographs were abnormal in 162/542 cases (30%). These provided new information about, but did not help to confirm, the pathological process leading to death in 14/162 (8.6%), may have helped to confirm, but not establish, the cause(s) of death in 1/162 (0.6%), and were of vital importance for establishing the cause(s) of death in 5/162 (3.1%). Among infants with external malformations, the proportion of useful radiographs was 12/100 (12%), and among the remainder it was 8/436 (1.8%), a difference of 10.2% (95% confidence interval 3.7% to 16.7%; data missing for six cases).

Conclusions: The diagnostic value of postmortem radiography in this population based set was low. However, radiographic findings were of vital importance for establishing the cause(s) of death in 5/542 cases (0.9%).

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (159.9 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Cremin B. J., Draper R. The value of radiography in perinatal deaths. Pediatr Radiol. 1981;11(3):143–146. doi: 10.1007/BF00971816. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Foote G. A., Wilson A. J., Stewart J. H. Perinatal post-mortem radiography--experience with 2500 cases. Br J Radiol. 1978 May;51(605):351–356. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-51-605-351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Griscom N. T., Driscoll S. G. Radiography of stillborn fetuses and infants dying at birth. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1980 Mar;134(3):485–489. doi: 10.2214/ajr.134.3.485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Grønvall J., Graem N. Radiography in post-mortem examinations of fetuses and neonates. Findings on plain films and at arteriography. APMIS. 1989 Mar;97(3):274–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1989.tb00788.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Mueller R. F., Sybert V. P., Johnson J., Brown Z. A., Chen W. J. Evaluation of a protocol for post-mortem examination of stillbirths. N Engl J Med. 1983 Sep 8;309(10):586–590. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198309083091004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Olsen Øystein E., Lie Rolv T., Lachman Ralph S., Maartmann-Moe Helga, Rosendahl Karen. Ossification sequence in infants who die during the perinatal period: population-based references. Radiology. 2002 Oct;225(1):240–244. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2251011130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Olsen Øystein E., Lie Rolv T., Maartmann-Moe Helga, Pirhonen Jouko, Lachman Ralph S., Rosendahl Karen. Skeletal measurements among infants who die during the perinatal period: new population-based reference. Pediatr Radiol. 2002 Jul 26;32(9):667–673. doi: 10.1007/s00247-001-0627-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Reinus W. R. Expanding the sphere of outcomes of research in radiology. Radiology. 1997 Apr;203(1):13–15. doi: 10.1148/radiology.203.1.9122380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Seppänen U. The value of perinatal post-mortem radiography. Experience of 514 cases. Ann Clin Res. 1985;17 (Suppl 44):1–59. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Skjaerven R., Gjessing H. K., Bakketeig L. S. Birthweight by gestational age in Norway. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000 Jun;79(6):440–449. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Stempflé N., Huten Y., Fondacci C., Lang T., Hassan M., Nessmann C. Fetal bone age revisited: proposal of a new radiographic score. Pediatr Radiol. 1995;25(7):551–555. doi: 10.1007/BF02015793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Thornbury J. R. Eugene W. Caldwell Lecture. Clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging: love it or leave it. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994 Jan;162(1):1–8. doi: 10.2214/ajr.162.1.8273645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Winter R. M., Sandin B. M., Mitchell R. A., Price A. B. The radiology of stillbirths and neonatal deaths. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1984 Aug;91(8):762–765. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1984.tb04846.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Archives of Disease in Childhood Fetal and Neonatal Edition are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES