[Dr. Fierro]: Virtopsy's been on the horizon for a bunch of years ever since the radiologists began to explore imaging in three dimensions. Virtopsy to me is very interesting, but I think that the major deficiency with Virtopsy is that the frame of reference for the viewer of it is different. A Virtopsy for a jury doesn't begin to reflect what that lesion actually looked like to the extent of injury. I know when I look at a Virtopsy type image, I know what that path is showing, I can see the damage to the brain tissue, I can see the whole in the heart, but I don't think a jury member has that frame of reference when he's reviewing it. That's the major deficiency.
If we were to have Virtopsy equipment, have the radiologic equipment for that, it would be very helpful as a supplement. It would certainly be an improvement over the standard anterior, posterior X-rays and the lateral X-rays that allow us to look at a lesion in only two dimensions. The Virtopsy actually gives you like a shadow gram of the different tissues and since they have different densities they appear differently. Although it's devoid of the actual "What does it really look like?" the imaging is terrific and beats X-ray.
I think Virtopsy in reference to forensic medicine is a useful supplement. Can we use it on a daily basis? No, because we can't afford the technology or the support for it.