A comparison between Cinematic Rendering Technique (CRT) and Volume Rendering Technique (VRT) in cases with postmortem CT-angiography (PMCTA) was carried out.
For different injuries seen in PMCTA, a VRT and a CRT image of exactly the same pathological section was generated. Two questionnaires were created, one with CRT and one with VRT reconstructions, with the same questions per 3D-image. The questionnaires were sent to forensic pathologists, lawyers and police officers. In total eleven different injuries had to be analyzed.
In total 109 questionnaires were answered fully. Of these returnees, 36 stated that they were forensic pathologists. Seventy-three people were assigned to the group of medical laypersons, in the study this group consists mainly of police officers, judges and lawyers. Between the two software programs CRT and VRT that were compared, no significant difference could be identified in any of the participating groups with regard to the assessment of the life-threatening nature of the injury images shown. When asked about the comprehensibility of pathology, there was a significant difference in favour of CRT. This advantage was apparent to named medical laypersons and to forensic pathologists.
The study showed a positive trend that CRT may be more understandable than VRT. Not only the medical laypersons, but also the forensic physicians found CRT to be beneficial.