不规则瘢痕快速定量仪在法医损伤鉴定中的应用

Application of a rapid quantitative instrument for irregular scars in forensic injury identification

目的研发损伤长度、面积的自动测量技术,研制法医损伤自动测量设备,实现损伤长度、面积测量的自动化、智能化。方法使用壹圆硬币并将坐标纸剪成长度不同的条状、或者不规则形状模拟瘢痕,贴在志愿者身体的不同部位作为标准数据。然后使用不规则瘢痕快速定量仪对以上研究对象的周长和面积进行测量,将以上测量数据与标准数据的差值的绝对值录入SPSS软件中进行统计分析。结果壹圆硬币测量:周长值、面积值、直径值通过本技术测量的相对平均偏差依次为0.03%、2.23%、8.76%,直径和面积的测量值相对真实值偏小,差异均有统计学意义(t=5.725、2.585,P均<0.05),周长测量相对准确,与真实值差异无统计学意义(t=0.036,P>0.05)。200 mm条状瘢痕周长测量数据中,前臂、大腿、小腿较真实值偏小,差异均有统计学意义(t=4.401、21.822、9.168,P均<0.05),在上臂的测量中更接近真实值,差异无统计学意义(t=-2.109,P>0.05)。面积测量数据在上臂测量中偏大,在大腿测量中偏小,与真实值差异均有统计学意义(t=-7.967,18.396,P均<0.05),在前臂和小腿的测量中与真实值更为接近,差异均无统计学意义(t=-0.489、-1.018,P均>0.05)。175 mm周长三角形瘢痕在多组周长与面积的测量中,上肢周长测量较真实值偏小,差异有统计学意义(t=10.117,P<0.05),胸部、下肢相对较准确,与真实值差异无统计学意义(t=1.851、1.097,P均>0.05);面积的测量中上肢、胸部、下肢测量值较真实值偏小,差异均有统计学意义(t=6.275、5.148、3.729,P均<0.05)。220 mm周长“L”形瘢痕多组周长测量数据中,上肢与胸部测量值均较真实值偏小,下肢测量值偏大,差异均有统计学意义(t=11.699、18.701、-3.813,P均<0.05)。在面积测量中,上肢与胸部测量值较真实值偏小,下肢测量值较真实值偏大,差异均有统计学意义(t=10.867、5.887、-13.755,P均<0.05)。结论研制的快速测量仪可以较准确地测量不规则瘢痕,适用于临床实践,但该设备不适用于在曲度较大部位瘢痕的测量。

Objective To develop an automatic measurement technology for measuring damage length and area, and develop an automatic forensic measurement equipment for injury, so as to realize the automation and intelligence of damage length and area measurement. Methods One-yuan coins and strips of different lengths or irregular shapes were cut from graph paper to simulate scars, and were sticked them on different parts of the volunteers' bodies as standard measures. A rapid quantitative instrument for irregular scars was used to measure the circumference and area of the research objects and the standards;SPSS was used to analyze the differences between the research objects' measurement data and the standard data. Results One-yuan coin measurement: The relative average deviations of the circumference value, area value, and diameter value measured by this technology were 0.03%, 2.23%, and 8.76%, respectively. The diameter measurement value and the area measurement value were all smaller than the true value. The differences were statistically significant(t=5.725, 2.585;all P<0.05). The circumference measurement was relatively accurate, and the difference from the true value was not statistically significant(t=0.036, P>0.05). In the 200 mm strip scar circumference measurement data,the forearm, thigh, and calf, the relative average deviation was smaller than the true value, and the differences were statistically significant(t=4.401, 21.822, 9.168;all P<0.05). In the measurement of the upper arm, it was closer to the true value, and the difference was not statistically significant(t=-2.109, P>0.05). It was larger in the upper arm measurement and smaller in the thigh measurement. The differences from the true values were statistically significant(t=-7.967, 18.396;all P<0.05), which was closer to the true value in the measurement of forearm and calf, and the differences were not statistically significant(t=-0.489,-1.018;all P>0.05). For the 175 mm circumference triangular scar, in multiple groups of circumference and area measurements, the measurement of the upper limbs circumference was smaller than the true value.The difference was statistically significance(t=10.117, P<0.05). The chest and lower limbs were relatively accurate with the true values, and there were not statistically significant differences(t=1.851, 1.097;all P>0.05). In the area measurement, the measured values of the upper limbs, chest and abdomen, and lower limbs were smaller than the true values, and the differences were statistically significant(t=6.275,5.148,3.729;all P<0.05). In the multiple sets of circumference measurement data of the “L”-shaped scar with a circumference of 220 mm, the measurement values of the upper limbs and chest were both smaller than those of the true value, and the measurement values of the lower limbs were larger. The differences were all statistically significant(t=11.699, 18.701,-3.813;all P<0.05). In area measurement, the values of upper limbs and chest were smaller than those of the true values, and the measurement values of lower limbs were larger than that of the true value. The differences were all statistically significant(t=10.867, 5.887,-13.755;all P<0.05).Conclusion The present rapid measuring device could accurately measure irregular scars and could be used in clinical practice, but the device was not suitable for measuring scars in areas of greater curvature.