Search results for: Jalapão/TO/Brazil

Authors: Patricia Shirley Almeida Prado, Selma Paixão Argollo, Maria De Fátima Teixeira Guimarães, Leticia Matos Sobrinho

Abstract:

Skeletal differential diagnosis is essential in forensic anthropology in order to differentiate skeletal trauma from normal osseous variation and pathological processes. Thus, part of forensic anthropological field is differentiate skeletal criminal injuries from the normal skeletal variation (bone fusion or nonunion, transitional vertebrae and other non-metric traits), non-traumatic skeletal pathology (myositis ossificans, arthritis, bone metastasis, osteomyelitis) from traumatic skeletal pathology (myositis ossificans traumatic) avoiding misdiagnosis. This case shows the importance of effective pathological diagnosis in order to accelerate the identification process of skeletonized human remains. THE CASE: An unidentified skeletal remains at the medico legal institute Nina Rodrigues-Salvador, of a male young adult (29 to 40 years estimated) showing a massive heterotopic ossification on its right tibia at upper epiphysis and adjacent articular femur surface; an extensive ossification on the right clavicle (at the sternal extremity) also presenting an heterotopic ossification at right scapulae (upper third of scapulae lateral margin and infraglenoid tubercule) and at the head of right humerus at the shoulder joint area. Curiously, this case also shows an unusual porosity in certain vertebrae´s body and in some tarsal and carpal bones. Likewise, his left fifth metacarpal bones (right and left) showed a healed fracture which led both bones distorted. Based on identification, of pathological conditions in human skeletal remains literature and protocols these alterations can be misdiagnosed and this skeleton may present more than one pathological process. The anthropological forensic lab at Medico-legal Institute Nina Rodrigues in Salvador (Brazil) adopts international protocols to ancestry, sex, age and stature estimations, also implemented well-established conventions to identify pathological disease and skeletal alterations. The most compatible diagnosis for this case is hematogenous osteomyelitis due to following findings: 1: the healed fracture pattern at the clavicle showing a cloaca which is a pathognomonic for osteomyelitis; 2: the metacarpals healed fracture does not present cloaca although they developed a periosteal formation. 3: the superior articular surface of the right tibia shows an extensive inflammatory healing process that extends to adjacent femur articular surface showing some cloaca at tibia bone disease. 4: the uncommon porosities may result from hematogenous infectious process. The fractures probably have occurred in a different moments based on the healing process; the tibia injury is more extensive and has not been reorganized, while metacarpals and clavicle fracture is properly healed. We suggest that the clavicle and tibia´s fractures were infected by an existing infectious disease (syphilis, tuberculosis, brucellosis) or an existing syndrome (Gorham’s disease), which led to the development of osteomyelitis. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that different bones are affected in diverse levels. Like the metacarpals that do not show the cloaca, but then a periosteal new bone formation; then the unusual porosities do not show a classical osteoarthritic processes findings as the marginal osteophyte, pitting and new bone formation, they just show an erosive process without bone formation or osteophyte. To confirm and prove our hypothesis we are working on different clinical approaches like DNA, histopathology and other image exams to find the correct diagnostic.

Keywords: bone disease, forensic anthropology, hematogenous osteomyelitis, human identification, human remains

Procedia PDF Downloads 321

Authors: Tim Crocker-Buque, Sandra Mounier-Jack, Natasha Howard

Abstract:

Background: Due to both the increasing scale and speed of urbanisation, urban areas in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) host increasingly large populations of under-immunized children, with the additional associated risks of rapid disease transmission in high-density living environments. Multiple interdependent factors are associated with these coverage disparities in urban areas and most evidence comes from relatively few countries, e.g., predominantly India, Kenya, Nigeria, and some from Pakistan, Iran, and Brazil. This study aimed to identify, describe, and assess the main tools used to measure or improve coverage of immunisation services in poor urban areas. Methods: Authors used a qualitative review design, including academic and non-academic literature, to identify tools used to improve coverage of public health interventions in urban areas. Authors selected and extracted sources that provided good examples of specific tools, or categories of tools, used in a context relevant to urban immunization. Diagnostic (e.g., for data collection, analysis, and insight generation) and programme tools (e.g., for investigating or improving ongoing programmes) and interventions (e.g., multi-component or stand-alone with evidence) were selected for inclusion to provide a range of type and availability of relevant tools. These were then prioritised using a decision-analysis framework and a tool selection guide for programme managers developed. Results: Authors reviewed tools used in urban immunisation contexts and tools designed for (i) non-immunization and/or non-health interventions in urban areas, and (ii) immunisation in rural contexts that had relevance for urban areas (e.g., Reaching every District/Child/ Zone). Many approaches combined several tools and methods, which authors categorised as diagnostic, programme, and intervention. The most common diagnostic tools were cross-sectional surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, secondary analysis of routine data, and geographical mapping of outcomes, resources, and services. Programme tools involved multiple stages of data collection, analysis, insight generation, and intervention planning and included guidance documents from WHO (World Health Organisation), UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund), USAID (United States Agency for International Development), and governments, and articles reporting on diagnostics, interventions, and/or evaluations to improve urban immunisation. Interventions involved service improvement, education, reminder/recall, incentives, outreach, mass-media, or were multi-component. The main gaps in existing tools were an assessment of macro/policy-level factors, exploration of effective immunization communication channels, and measuring in/out-migration. The proposed framework uses a problem tree approach to suggest tools to address five common challenges (i.e. identifying populations, understanding communities, issues with service access and use, improving services, improving coverage) based on context and available data. Conclusion: This study identified many tools relevant to evaluating urban LMIC immunisation programmes, including significant crossover between tools. This was encouraging in terms of supporting the identification of common areas, but problematic as data volumes, instructions, and activities could overwhelm managers and tools are not always suitably applied to suitable contexts. Further research is needed on how best to combine tools and methods to suit local contexts. Authors’ initial framework can be tested and developed further.

Keywords: health equity, immunisation, low and middle-income countries, poverty, urban health

Procedia PDF Downloads 135