Should Terminologia Anatomica be revised and extended? A critical literature review

• Autorzy: Chmielewski P.P. , Strzelec B.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The first edition of the Terminologia Anatomica was published in 1998 by the Federative Committee for Anatomical Terminology, whereas the second edition was issued in 2011 by the Federative International Programme for Anatomical Terminologies. Since then many attempts have been made to revise and extend the official terminology as several inconsistencies have been noted. Moreover, numerous crucial terms were either omitted or deliberately excluded from the official terminology, like sulcus popliteus and diaphragma urogenitale, respectively. Furthermore, several synonyms are to be discarded. Notwithstanding the criticism, the use of the current version of terminology is strongly recommended. Although the Terminologia Anatomica is open to future expansion and revision, every change should be made after a thorough discussion of the historical context and scientific legitimacy of a given term. The anatomical nomenclature must be as simple as possible but also precise and coherent. It is generally accepted that hasty innovation ought not to be endorsed. Therefore, there is a need to take a closer look at these new proposals as they have been presented in numerous dispersed papers. This article provides an overview of these issues and concentrates on selected revisions and extensions that are didactically and clinically useful, thereby summarising the salient aspects of these new and compelling proposals. (Folia Morphol 2020; 79, 1: 1–14)

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Folia Morphologica
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: 79
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.1-14,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Chmielewski P.P.

• Division of Anatomy, Department of Human Morphology and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland

autor

Strzelec B.

• Department and Clinic of Vascular, General and Transplantation Surgery, Jan Mikulicz-Radecki Medical University Hospital, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland
• Department and Clinic of Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Benias PC, Wells RG, Sackey-Aboagye B, et al. Structure and distribution of an unrecognized interstitium in human tissues. Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1): 4947, doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-23062-6, indexed in Pubmed: 29588511.
• 2. Burdan F, Dworzański W, Cendrowska-Pinkosz M, et al. Anatomical eponyms — unloved names in medical terminology. Folia Morphol. 2016; 75(4): 413–438, doi: 10.5603/FM.a2016.0012, indexed in Pubmed: 27830870.
• 3. FCAT. Terminologia Anatomica. International Anatomical Terminology. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart 1998.
• 4. FIPAT. Terminologia Anatomica. International Anatomical Terminology. 2nd edition. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart 2011.
• 5. Gest TR, Burkel WE, Cortright GW. A need for logical and consistent anatomical nomenclature for cutaneous nerves of the limbs. Anat Sci Educ. 2009; 2(3): 126–134, doi: 10.1002/ase.90, indexed in Pubmed: 19496151.
• 6. Gielecki J, Zurada A, Osman N. Terminologia anatomica in the past and the future from perspective of 110th anniversary of Polish Anatomical Terminology. Folia Morphol. 2008; 67(2): 87–97, indexed in Pubmed: 18521806.
• 7. Hirsch BE. Does the Terminologia Anatomica really matter? Clin Anat. 2011; 24(4): 503–504, doi: 10.1002/ca.21140, indexed in Pubmed: 21509816.
• 8. Kachlik D, Baca V, Bozdechova I, et al. Anatomical terminology and nomenclature: past, present and highlights. Surg Radiol Anat. 2008; 30(6): 459–466, doi: 10.1007/s00276-008-0357-y, indexed in Pubmed: 18488135.
• 9. Kachlík D, Bozdechová I, Cech P, et al. [Ten years after the latest revision International Anatomical Terminology]. Cas Lek Cesk. 2008; 147(5): 287–294, indexed in Pubmed: 18630187.
• 10. Kachlik D, Bozdechova I, Cech P, et al. Mistakes in the usage of anatomical terminology in clinical practice. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2009; 153(2): 157–161, doi: 10.5507/bp.2009.027, indexed in Pubmed: 19771143.
• 11. Kachlik D, Musil V, Baca V. Terminologia Anatomica after 17 years: inconsistencies, mistakes and new proposals. Ann Anat. 2015; 201: 8–16, doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2015.04.006, indexed in Pubmed: 26094127.
• 12. Kachlik D, Musil V, Baca V. Contribution to the anatomical nomenclature concerning general anatomy and anatomical variations. Surg Radiol Anat. 2016; 38(7): 757–765, doi: 10.1007/s00276-016-1627-8, indexed in Pubmed: 26946463.
• 13. Kachlik D, Musil V, Baca V. Contribution to the anatomical nomenclature concerning upper limb anatomy. Surg Radiol Anat. 2017; 39(4): 405–417, doi: 10.1007/s00276-016-1749-z, indexed in Pubmed: 27646642.
• 14. Kachlik D, Musil V, Baca V. Contribution to the anatomical nomenclature concerning lower limb anatomy. Surg Radiol Anat. 2018; 40(5): 537–562, doi: 10.1007/s00276-017-1920-1, indexed in Pubmed: 28924737.
• 15. Krmpotić-Nemanić J, Vinter I. Incorrect medical terms in terminologia anatomica. Ann Anat. 2003; 185(2): 195–196, doi: 10.1016/S0940-9602(03)80090-0, indexed in Pubmed: 12725445.
• 16. Martin BD, Thorpe D, Barnes R, et al. Frequency in usage of FCAT-approved anatomical terms by North American anatomists. Anat Sci Educ. 2009; 2(3): 94–106, doi: 10.1002/ase.83, indexed in Pubmed: 19459207.
• 17. Strzelec B, Chmielewski PP, Gworys B. The Terminologia Anatomica matters: examples from didactic, scientific, and clinical practice. Folia Morphol. 2017; 76(3): 340–347, doi: 10.5603/FM.a2016.0078, indexed in Pubmed: 28026851.
• 18. van Riet R, Van Glabbeek F, Bortier H. Crinis radii: a name for the distal radius. Clin Anat. 2002; 15(5): 375–376, doi: 10.1002/ca.10042, indexed in Pubmed: 12203383.
• 19. Varga I, Blankova A, Konarik M, et al. The Terminologia Histologica after 10 years: Inconsistencies, mistakes, and new proposals. Ann Anat. 2018; 219: 65–75, doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2018.05.005, indexed in Pubmed: 29885444.
• 20. Whitmore I. Terminologia anatomica: new terminology for the new anatomist. Anat Rec. 1999; 257(2): 50–53, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0185(19990415)257:2<50::AIDAR4>3.0.CO;2-W, indexed in Pubmed: 10321431.
• 21. Whitworth JA. Should eponyms be abandoned? No. BMJ. 2007; 335(7617): 425, doi: 10.1136/bmj.39308.380567. AD, indexed in Pubmed: 17762034.
• 22. Woywodt A, Matteson E. Should eponyms be abandoned? Yes. BMJ. 2007; 335(7617): 424, doi: 10.1136/bmj.39308.342639.AD, indexed in Pubmed: 17762033.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2019.0047