Search

In Terminologia Anatomica the term hymen is identified with the number 3530. It is a small membranous tissue that normally occupies a part of the external vaginal opening in women. The relevance of the term hymen has been scarcely addressed in the literature of the anatomical terminology field. Therefore, the objective of this work was to analyze this term, verify its etymology and functionality, and determine how it has been considered in certain cultural clinical and legal aspects. The term hymen comes from the Latin hymen, borrowed from the Greek hymḗn ὑμήν, which means membrane. With the general value of any membrane, it was used in Greece from the 5th century BC, however, through a phenomenon of Latin specialization, from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, the term was used applying its current meaning. Its origin comes from the name of the Greek god of marriage called Hymenaeus, which links the term to an eponym and a myth at the same time. Despite the above, we believe that its conservation in Terminologia Anatomica could be due to its long history, even though there may be better options to name this structure. The hymen does not have a known biological function, however, it has been highly valued at a cultural, clinical and legal level, in which the physical examination has determined conclusions about the sexual history of women and girls even when the evidence shows that it is not an accurate or reliable proof of sexual activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In International Anatomical Terminology, the term sacrum is identified with the number 1071. In humans, it is the largest vertebral bone formed by the fusion of five vertebrae. The origin of the term sacrum is still under discussion and is not entirely clear, in addition, the relevance of this denomination has been little addressed in the literature. Thus, the objective of this work was to analyze the term sacrum and then propose a term for the denomination of this anatomical structure following the recommendations of the Federative International Program for Anatomical Terminology (FIPAT). This bone was called sacrum, because it is considered sacred, since it has a deep religious meaning, although other traditions such as mysticism and rituals have also been attributed to it. The term sacrum does not favor understanding, since it is neither descriptive nor informative, so we suggest changing it to vertebrae magna (vertebrae magna), since this proposal follows the FIPAT recommendations, that is, not only be unequivocal, but also accurate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The term cerebrospinal fluid is generally used in morphology. In Latin it is known as liquor cerebrospinalis. In the human, this fluid circulates through various cavities of the central nervous system, of which, five ventricles are recognized. Four are brain components and one is in the terminal part of the spinal cord. The objective of the present study was to determine the most appropriate term for this liquid, while evaluating the current use of terminology in scientific publications and in academic textbooks used to tech neuroanatomy. A non-systematic and randomized bibliographic search of books and scientific articles was carried out, making mention of the encephalic ventricular system fluid and the subarachnoid space of the humans. A total, (100 %) of identified scientific books and articles published in English, used the term cerebrospinal fluid to refer to this fluid; 90 % of the scientific books and articles published in Spanish used the term cephalic-rachid fluid; cerebrospinal fluid was used in 10 % of these. The results show that more than one term continues to be used in Latin America to refer to this structure. International Federation of Anatomical Associations (IFAA) recommendations have not been followed, since most books and scientific research publications use the term cerebrospinal fluid to describe the structure. Moreover, we believe that the cephalic-spinal fluid is the most appropriate term in this case, given that circulation occurs throughout the ventricular nervous system and the subarachnoid space. This term is proposed to replace the current and traditional cerebrospinal fluid in English and cephalic-rachid fluid in Spanish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditionally since their approval, the terms of anatomical variations have been incorporated in the Basle Nomina Anatomica (BNA, 1895), Jena Nomina Anatomica (JNA, 1933) and Paris Nomina Anatomica (PNA, 1955). In the first two editions of Terminologia Anatomica (TA) (1998 and 2019), numerous anatomical terms, can be found in parenthesis, which according to their anatomical definition, are indicative that they do not constitute normal standards. Therefore, it is worthwhile inquiring what criteria was used at the time these terms were incorporated. Experience and knowledge in the anatomical teaching field, has asserted that 'normal' is a concept with a strong statistical component. In anatomical normal standards, it has been noted that the statistical criterion is most important. That is to say that the anatomical structure is found in the highest percentage of the population, generally in over 50% of cases. Consequently, structures found below the statistical average in number should not be considered anatomically normal. The concept of normality in human anatomy is different from that in a patient, given that normal in that case is considered when the person is not incubating or suffering from a disease. In this article we present a series of terms incorporated into TA which, considering our point of view, should not be part of the TA. Nevertheless, as a result of exhaustive research, certain terms with higher statistical percentages are emphasized which were not incorporated in the Terminology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The technical-scientific vocabulary, one of them the Anatomical Terminology, has a linguistic legacy of classical languages in general and of Latin and Greek in particular. In this context, the metaphor has played an important role in the naming of certain structures of the human body. The analysis of these metaphors has allowed us to know the etymological origin of numerous anatomical terms derived from this frequent practice throughout history. The purpose of this study was to analyze and reflect on the use of the term thalamus and to comment on the formal similarity of this metaphor with the neuroanatomical characteristics. The name thalamus was assigned by Claudio Galeno (130-200 BC); It comes from a common language of material order, which has been mentioned by classical authors, mainly, as "internal chamber or bridal chamber" and brought to a technicalscientific language through a metaphor motivated by a spatial arrangement or understood as a image expression or formal similarity. If Galen used this metaphor considering a formal similarity, the term thalamus would be misleading, since there is no structural correspondence to the term because the neuroanatomical thalamus is not a chamber, but a compact, spheroidal or oval diencephalic structure. In this context, the term thalamus is confusing, since this metaphor is more consistent with the third ventricle. Considering the above, we invite you to reflect on a proposal based on a morphological characteristic of the structure, in which the term thalamus is replaced by neuroovoid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of Terminologia Anatomica (TA) in Latin America still remains a serious problem of scientific communication among professionals and students in the healthcare field and related sciences. The use of different terms for the same structure can lead to increased medical errors and jeopardize patient safety and satisfaction. In Latin America the current use of anatomical terminology is an academic dilemma, which translates into communication errors, and a lack of understanding, when different terms are used for the same structure. This is also true when considering texts used in anatomical teaching that have not followed the recommendations of the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists (IFAA). Several attempts have been made to translate the terms from Latin to Spanish, initially from the Nomina Anatomica, and later from the TA, though there were numerous final errors. Scarce knowledge of Latin may be a contributing factor, however, a number of morphologists who participated in these translations, simply did not accept the Latin terminology, insisting instead on the use of well-recognized terms in Spanish, even though these may not be correct. Thus, the objective was to review some texts used in academics in morphological sciences, particularly literature used by students in the healthcare fields. Also, some texts related to anatomical nomenclature and terminology edited by the Spanish Society of Anatomy were reviewed. Another objective is to evaluate comments and reviews of the activities and efforts realized in this area thus far, mainly in the Ibero-Latin American Symposium on Anatomical, Histological and Embryological Terminology (SILAT) in order to finally unify the TA correctly in the Spanish language. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The correct use of morphological terminology is extremely important for scientific communication. These terminologies should be clear and precise and consistent with each other. The need to unify criteria has been reflected in the performance of the Iberian Latin American Symposium of Terminology (SILAT), initiated in 2009 by the Pan American Association of Anatomy. The priority is to unify and update morphological terms and also pose challenges and propose solutions to improve the different terminologies. The objective was to coordinate a review of some Latin terms common to Terminologia Anatomica (TA) and Terminologia Histologica (TH), in order, by way of example compare and identify some terms that generate discrepancy, and therefore confusion for those who use it. Although both terminologies present the same considerations for their makeup, there are some differences in organization, denomination of terms and more than one single term for the same structure. Furthermore, the same structure may have different names between one terminology and another. Many terms are written in the plural and singular in TA and TH. SILAT proposes some improvements for these issues by providing opportunities to review and discuss the different terminologies and thus demonstrate the need to modify and harmonize terms that present discrepancies. In short, we are hopeful that with this initial information, arguments can be made to further uniform criteria that may be considered by the experts that make up the Federative International Programme for Anatomical Terminology. Additionally, and as noted this would allow the development of dialogue with members of the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists, and continue to improve scientific communication between the various actors of the morphological sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Learning anatomy can be difficult and not very motivating for the student due to its complex vocabulary. One of the initial challenges in the teachinglearning process of human anatomy is the approach to general terms for the relationship and comparison of anatomical structures in the human body. The objective of this study was to analyze the definitions of the terms «relation and comparison» present in classic anatomy books and included in Terminologia Anatomica, identifying those terms that can cause confusion in the teaching-learning process of human anatomy. The terms were analyzed in different human anatomy texts, in the Royal National Academy of Medicine of Spain and in Terminologia Anatomica (FIPAT, 2019). It was possible to verify the existence of 18 relationship and comparison terms, of which 6 (external, internal, superficial, deep, intermediate and middle) can be confusing within the teaching-learning process of human anatomy. Factors such as ambiguous usage, lack of clear definitions, differences between Terminologia Anatomica and common language, and inconsistency across different sources contribute to this possible confusion. It is necessary to address these difficulties through a precise teaching of Terminologia Anatomica and its proper application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Numerous articles have described the distribution of superficial veins in the cubital fossa. These veins have anatomic and clinical importance and are of interest to anatomists, surgeons and nurses. The median cephalic and median basilic veins are the product of the division of the cephalic vein of the forearm. Both veins drain into the cephalic vein accessory and basilic vein, respectively. Nomina Anatomica considered the median cephalic vein and median basilic vein, which has allowed a precise, clear and understandable anatomical description. We need to include the terms median cephalic and median basilic veins in Terminologia Anatomica, terms excluded by the Federative International Program for Anatomical Terminology (FIPAT). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists (IFAA) anatomical terminologies are the basis of medical terminology. The need for a common histological vocabulary becomes increasingly important for communication between the different researchers in the Medical Sciences. Since early last century it has been a prime objective for many morphologists to achieve this understanding. In the present study we report part of the history of Terminologia Histologica, some generally accepted principles, a comparison of terms used in Terminologia Anatomica, as well as examples of appropriate and inappropriate use of terms. We conclude that the correct use of Terminologia Histologica is critical in scientific and medical language allowing clear and accurate communication between those who participate and work in the Medical Sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article was to review the etymology of the terms Corpus rubrum, Corpus luteum and Corpus albicans, to identify if the way of naming them in the different lists and international terminologies are in accordance with the FIPAT suggestions and to analyze and reflect on the relevance of these terms in the Terminologia Anatomica. Firstly, the meaning of the Latin roots of the terms: Corpus rubrum, Corpus luteum and Corpus albicans were searched in the dictionaries: of the Royal Academy of Language, latest update; of the Medical Terms of the Royal National Academy of Medicine in Spain; in the Vox dictionary, Spanish Latin. Then we investigate the history to know since when these terms are used, as well as the review of the different anatomical, histological and embryological lists and terminologies from 1955 to date. The search reported that these Latin adjectives should be translated as follows: rubrum as red; luteum as yellow and albicans as albicante which means to whiten, therefore, the correct translation should be: Red body, Yellow body and Albicans or white body of the ovary, they are also transitory and functional structures. The terms Corpus rubrum, Corpus luteum and Corpus albicans that identify ovarian structures in the Terminologia Anatomica and Terminologia Histologica should be reviewed since they are transitory structures and their name only indicates the color they acquire at the functional moment and refers to the changes that the same structure presents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Learning anatomy requires students to incorporate a significant amount of new vocabulary, which may lead to some difficulties as students are unfamiliar with most of these terms. Despite efforts realized over time to make the use of Terminologia Anatomica (TA) clear and precise, teaching anatomy remains a complex issue. In this context, it becomes necessary to develop innovative new strategies that favor student learning. The objective of this study therefore, was to analyze, from an etymological origin, the prefixes and suffixes included in the TA, in order to facilitate the teaching and learning processes of human anatomy. The use of each prefix and suffix in anatomy was investigated in the second edition of the TA. The affixes found were analyzed from an etymological point of view according to the guidelines proposed by the Medical-Biological, Historical and Etymological Dictionary of the University of Salamanca. As a result, it was possible to corroborate a wide use of prefixes and suffixes in TA, and verify that all the terms analyzed from an etymological point of view, coincide with their current use in anatomy. Consequently, their knowledge and understanding could facilitate the teaching and learning processes of human anatomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Learning Anatomy can be a difficult and unmotivating process for the student, due to its complex vocabulary. One of the initial challenges in the teaching-learning process of Human Anatomy is the approach to the general terms of the musculoskeletal system grouped with the names of repairs, bone marks or accidents on the surface of the bone. These are usually mentioned with little or no definition in bibliographic resources. The objective of this work was to review the bibliographic resources that effectively have definitions of the terms known as repairs, bone marks or accidents on the bone surface, in order to provide clarifying information on the use of these bone terms and thus facilitate the teaching-learning processes of Human Anatomy. The terms commonly used to describe repairs, bone marks or accidents on the bone surface were analyzed in Terminologia Anatomica (FIPAT, 2019) and in five texts on Human Anatomy. To facilitate understanding, the results were classified and tabulated. There was a lack of bibliographic resources with definitions of the repairs, bone marks or accidents on the bone surface. Most of these bone terms were found in the musculoskeletal system. However, they are not exclusive to this system, and conceptual errors were observed in the definitions of some of the bone terms. One way to better understand these terms is to frequently review the Terminologia Anatomica. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the Renaissance anatomists laid the foundations for present day knowledge in this discipline. Not all anatomists however, were good linguists, which led to errors in translation and prompted discussions in reference to the correct use of certain anatomical terms. The controversial use of the terms lobe and lobule being one of these discrepancies. The objective of this study was to analyze the terms lobus and lobulus and propose a correct concept for the naming of anatomical structures following Federative International Programme for Anatomical Terminology (FIPAT) recommendations. A search was carried out for the terms lobe and lobule with their derivatives in Anatomical Terminology. Each term was analyzed from an etymological and semantic point of view according to the Medical-Biological, Historical and Etymological Dictionary, University of Salamanca. Terms derived from lobe and lobule can be found in a number of systems in the human body, characterizing this term as one of frequent use. In conclusion, the term lobe from the Latin lobus, originates from the Greek language, meaning the rounded structure and protrusion of an organ. Subsequently, Romans Latinized the term in order to reclassify it into medical language. Consequently, and in accordance to FITAP regulation, with Latin as the official language, the correct terms to use are lobus and lobulus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]