Deaths associated with liposuction: case reports and review of the literature

Tumescent liposuction is a common cosmetic procedure that is performed as an outpatient service in physician's offices and is largely believed to be safe. The protuberant areas of the body containing the undesirable fat deposits are injected with normal saline containing lidocaine and epinephrine for pain control and hemostasis, and the waterlogged cells are suctioned out via cannula through a small incision. We recently encountered three cases in which deaths were attributed to this procedure. Two showed fat embolization in the lung and one died from fluid overload. The osmium tetroxide post-fixed lung sections showed fat emboli in the interstitial capillaries and arterioles. We reviewed the recent literature and found that pulmonary thromboemboli, fat embolization, fluid overload, and lidocaine and epinephrine intoxication are found at autopsy in many cases. Forensic pathologists responsible for determining the cause and manner of death should become familiar with the postmortem findings and risks of liposuction therapy and communicate them to their clinical colleagues and communities.     

Evaluation of some oxygen, sulfur, and selenium substituted ninhydrin analogues, nitrophenylninhydrin and benzo[f]furoninhydrin

Six ninhydrin analogues containing oxygen, sulfur, and selenium substituents at the C-5 position, 5-(4-nitrophenyl)ninhydrin, and benzo[f]furoninhydrin were evaluated as fingerprint development reagents. The analogues all showed good fingerprint color development but were not superior to ninhydrin in this respect. The benzo[f]furoninhydrin complex was strongly luminescent at room temperature following zinc complexation, while the remaining analogues required cooling to -196 degrees C to produce optimum luminescence. The benzo[f]furo, nitrophenyl, and methyl selenide analogues showed the best potential as fingerprint reagents with the benzo[f]furo analogue comparing favorably with DFO.     

Antitrust, health care quality, and the courts

Antitrust law represents the principal legal tool that the United States employs to police private markets, yet it often relegates quality and nonprice considerations to a secondary position. While antitrust law espouses the belief that vigorous competition will enhance quality as well as price, little evidence exists of the practical ability of courts to deliver on that promise. In this Article, Professors Hammer and Sage examine American health care as a vehicle for advancing understanding of the nexus among competition, quality, and antitrust law. The Article reports results of a comprehensive empirical review of judicial opinions in health care antitrust litigation between 1985 and 1999, with specific attention to courts' handling of quality and other nonprice concerns. Professors Hammer and Sage conclude that, although antitrust law cannot be expected to serve as the sole oversight mechanism for industries as complex and quality dependent as health care, courts have been successful incorporating some nonprice factors into antitrust analysis.     

Bile analysis of drugs in postmortem cases

Bile is, in certain cases, collected together with blood from different sites (heart, brain, femoral), urine and other organs or matrices. This study reports comparative results obtained from the analysis of blood and bile for different drugs found: acetaminophen, amphetamine and related compounds, several antidepressants, several benzodiazepines, cocaine and its metabolites, dextropropoxyphene and its metabolite, hydroxyzine, methadone and metabolite, morphine and codeine, levomepromazine, thioridazine, propranolol, tramadol and its metabolite. Several findings are presented: (1) There were no significant differences in the levels of the compounds among the samples of blood obtained from different sites. (2) Levels in bile are generally several fold higher than those in blood. The mean bile to blood ratios vary from about 1 (for acetaminophen, amphetamine) to about 2000 (for desmethylclobazam). (3) In certain cases (16 over 44), although the drug or its metabolite was not detected in blood from different sites, it was detected in bile. As other authors had advocated, it is very useful to ask the pathologist to take the gall bladder with its contents together with the other samples, in order that the sample of bile can be used in the comprehensive toxicological analysis and therefore be complementary to the other fluids or matrices. An additional advantage for using bile is that the concentrations of drugs or their metabolites are generally several fold higher than their blood concentrations.     

Plasma,oral fluid and sweat wipe ecstasy concentrations in controlled and real life conditions

In a double-blind placebo controlled study on psychomotor skills important for car driving (Study 1), a 75 mg dose of +/- 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) was administered orally to 12 healthy volunteers who were known to be recreational MDMA-users. Toxicokinetic data were gathered by analysis of blood, urine, oral fluid and sweat wipes collected during the first 5h after administration. Resultant plasma concentrations varied from 21 to 295 ng/ml, with an average peak concentration of 178 ng/ml observed between 2 and 4h after administration. MDA concentrations never exceeded 20 ng/ml. Corresponding MDMA concentrations in oral fluid, as measured with a specific LC-MS/MS method (which required only 50 microl of oral fluid), generally exceeded those in plasma and peaked at an average concentration of 1215 ng/ml. A substantial intra- and inter-subject variability was observed with this matrix, and values ranged from 50 to 6982 ng/ml MDMA. Somewhat surprisingly, even 4-5h after ingestion, the MDMA levels in sweat only averaged 25 ng/wipe. In addition to this controlled study, data were collected from 19 MDMA-users who participated in a driving simulator study (Study 2), comparing sober non-drug conditions with MDMA-only and multiple drug use conditions. In this particular study, urine samples were used for general drug screening and oral fluid was collected as an alternative to blood sampling. Analysis of oral fluid samples by LC-MS/MS revealed an average MDMA/MDEA concentration of 1121 ng/ml in the MDMA-only condition, with large inter-subject variability. This was also the case in the multiple drug condition, where generally, significantly higher concentrations of MDMA, MDEA and/or amphetamine were detected in the oral fluid samples. Urine screening revealed the presence of combinations such as MDMA, MDEA, amph, cannabis, cocaine, LSD and psilocine in the multiple-drug condition.