-
Legal Medicine (Tokyo, Japan) Jun 2024Suicidal hanging resulting in decapitation is rarely documented. This discussion involves a case of a 35-year-old man found decapitated in his residence's garden. A... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Suicidal hanging resulting in decapitation is rarely documented. This discussion involves a case of a 35-year-old man found decapitated in his residence's garden. A systematic literature review on hanging-induced decapitation was conducted to comprehensively investigate and compare the case to existing literature. The study aims to identify frequently described post-mortem findings in cases of suicidal hanging leading to decapitation.
CASE REPORT
A 35-year-old man was found decapitated in his garden, with a jute strap and chimney debris nearby. The cervical region was completely severed along the dorsoventral and craniocaudal plane, exposing internal structures. A ligature mark was present, along with Amussat's sign and Simon's bleeding.
METHODS
The systematic review of the literature followed PRISMA standards, analyzing 3622 publications from Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus databases up to 2023. Inclusion criteria comprised cases of complete or incomplete decapitation resulting from hanging, available in full-text and written in English.
RESULTS
16 articles on hanging-induced decapitation met the selection criteria; 22 cases were analyzed. Studies, mostly from Europe, showed a mean victim age of 44.3, all male. Fall height ranged from 1 m to 18 m, with various suspension media. Most cases displayed complete decapitation, primarily between cervical vertebrae C1 and C3. Some cases noted collateral findings.
CONCLUSIONS
Complete crime scene investigation and thorough post-mortem examination are crucial for reconstructing events, especially with confounding elements. Precise evidence collection and literature comparison are essential to understand the case and substantiate the forensic pathologist's hypothesis in court.
PubMed: 38838410
DOI: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2024.102464 -
PloS One 2015This study aimed to investigate the quality of reporting of anesthesia and euthanasia in experimental studies in small laboratory mammals published in the top ten impact... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Anesthesia and Monitoring in Small Laboratory Mammals Used in Anesthesiology, Respiratory and Critical Care Research: A Systematic Review on the Current Reporting in Top-10 Impact Factor Ranked Journals.
RATIONALE
This study aimed to investigate the quality of reporting of anesthesia and euthanasia in experimental studies in small laboratory mammals published in the top ten impact factor journals.
METHODS
A descriptive systematic review was conducted and data was abstracted from the ten highest ranked journals with respect to impact factor in the categories 'Anesthesiology', 'Critical Care Medicine' and 'Respiratory System' as defined by the 2012 Journal Citation Reports. Inclusion criteria according to PICOS criteria were as follows: 1) population: small laboratory mammals; 2) intervention: any form of anesthesia and/or euthanasia; 3) comparison: not specified; 4) primary outcome: type of anesthesia, anesthetic agents and type of euthanasia; secondary outcome: animal characteristics, monitoring, mechanical ventilation, fluid management, postoperative pain therapy, animal care approval, sample size calculation and performed interventions; 5) study: experimental studies. Anesthesia, euthanasia, and monitoring were analyzed per performed intervention in each article.
RESULTS
The search yielded 845 articles with 1,041 interventions of interest. Throughout the manuscripts we found poor quality and frequency of reporting with respect to completeness of data on animal characteristics as well as euthanasia, while anesthesia (732/1041, 70.3%) and interventions without survival (970/1041, 93.2%) per se were frequently reported. Premedication and neuromuscular blocking agents were reported in 169/732 (23.1%) and 38/732 (5.2%) interventions, respectively. Frequency of reporting of analgesia during (117/610, 19.1%) and after painful procedures (38/364, 10.4%) was low. Euthanasia practice was reported as anesthesia (348/501, 69%), transcardial perfusion (37/501, 8%), carbon dioxide (26/501, 6%), decapitation (22/501, 5%), exsanguination (23/501, 5%), other (25/501, 5%) and not specified (20/501, 4%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The present systematic review revealed insufficient reporting of anesthesia and euthanasia methods throughout experimental studies in small laboratory mammals. Specific guidelines for anesthesia and euthanasia regimens should be considered to achieve comparability, quality of animal experiments and animal welfare. These measures are of special interest when translating experimental findings to future clinical applications.
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthesiology; Animals; Animals, Laboratory; Critical Care; Euthanasia; Journal Impact Factor; Mammals; Monitoring, Physiologic; Periodicals as Topic; Research; Research Report; Respiration; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 26305700
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134205