Histothanatology: Autolysis, Putrefaction, Mummification

Abstract

Histological and histopathological findings following prolonged postmortem intervals have been subject of several investigations in the past (Galloway 1997; Emson 1991; Weimann 1958; Walcher 1928, 1938). The detection of usable microscopic findings in relation to the postmortem interval, especially in the context of exhumation, is by nature temporary and dependent on many factors. Thus, forensic-histological diagnostics are limited due to autolysis and putrefaction (Vock et al. 1989; Janssen 1977). These techniques are of limited utility, for example, in autopsies on bodies from mass graves (Ubelaker 2008). In the case of mummification, tissue and organoid structures, as well as potential pathological findings, can be shown microscopically for a significantly longer period of time in contrast to autolysis and putrefaction in non-mummified bodies (Schulz et al. 1999). However, microscopically, there are numerous demarcation problems, for example, when differentiating tubular necrosis in the kidney from solely autolytic changes (Kocovski and Duflou 2009). Detecting acute myocardial infarction can also be challenging and is only possible for a limited time period. Finally, structures are prone to various autolytic processes in the postmortem period. Leukocytes and nuclei of granulocytes are seen as exceedingly resistant to autolysis and putrefaction (Walcher 1928). Evidence of bronchopneumonia was shown even after 392 days following exhumation (Naeve and Bandmann 1981). Others have diagnosed confluent bronchopneumonia after a postmortem interval of 95 days (Althoff 1974). However, there is no specific sequence and timeline for changes in internal tissues and organs due to autolysis and putrefaction, nor can a fixed time or period of time be determined for single organs. In general, the uterus is considered to be an organ relatively resistant to putrefaction.