The Experts below are selected from a list of 288 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Vaclav Baca - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Terminologia Anatomica after 17 years: inconsistencies, mistakes and new proposals.
Annals of anatomy = Anatomischer Anzeiger : official organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft, 2015Co-Authors: David Kachlik, Vladimir Musil, Vaclav BacaAbstract:The article deals with our experience of Terminologia Anatomica (TA) in fields of education (of systemic and topographic anatomy) and clinical medicine (teaching of clinical anatomy and courses for young physicians in endoscopy). The Anatomical nomenclature in Latin has been official for 120 years and its latest version for 17 years. Its main weak points should be discussed in public (or at least the discussion should be provoked), which is the reason for publishing the following findings and ensuing proposals. They are classified with seven groups: mistakes in TA, discrepancies in TA, multiplication of terms, synonyms in TA, identical terms for different structures, too long terms and missing terms in TA. The last group comprises missing terms in systemic anatomy, clinical anatomy, a paucity of terms in variant anatomy, in locomotion system and in topographic anatomy. Several attempts to draw attention to these have been made by the publication of inaccuracies in Nomina Anatomica and TA but this article summarizes and reviews current situation, emphasizing the weak points of the TA and brings several proposals and suggestions for further discussion.
-
Mistakes in the usage of Anatomical terminology in clinical practice.
Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky Olomouc Czechoslovakia, 2009Co-Authors: David Kachlik, Ivana Bozdechova, Pavel Cech, Vladimir Musil, Vaclav BacaAbstract:Background: Anatomical terminology serves as a basic communication tool in all the medical fields. Therefore Latin Anatomical nomenclature has been repetitively issued and revised from 1895 (Basiliensia Nomina Anatomica) until 1998, when the last version was approved and published as the Terminologia Anatomica (International Anatomical Terminology) by the Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology. Methods and results: A brief history of the terminology and nomenclature development is mentioned, along with the concept and contributions of the Terminologia Anatomica including the employed abbreviations. Examples of obsolete Anatomical terms and their current synonyms are listed. Clinicians entered the process of the nomenclature revision and this aspect is demonstrated with several examples of terms used in clinical fields only, some already incorporated in the Terminologia Anatomica and a few obsolete terms still alive in non-theoretical communication. Frequent mistakes in grammar and orthography are stated as well. Conclusion: Authors of the article strongly recommend the use of the recent revision of the Latin Anatomical nomenclature both in theoretical and clinical medicine.
-
Anatomical terminology and nomenclature: past, present and highlights
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy, 2008Co-Authors: David Kachlik, Vaclav Baca, Ivana Bozdechova, Pavel Cech, Vladimir MusilAbstract:The Anatomical terminology is a base for medical communication. It is elaborated into a nomenclature in Latin. Its history goes back to 1895, when the first Latin Anatomical nomenclature was published as Basiliensia Nomina Anatomica . It was followed by seven revisions ( Jenaiensia Nomina Anatomica 1935 , Parisiensia Nomina Anatomica 1955 , Nomina Anatomica 2nd to 6th edition 1960–1989). The last revision, Terminologia Anatomica , (TA) created by the Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology and approved by the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists, was published in 1998. Apart from the official Latin Anatomical terminology, it includes a list of recommended English equivalents. In this article, major changes and pitfalls of the nomenclature are discussed, as well as the clinical anatomy terms. The last revision (TA) is highly recommended to the attention of not only teachers, students and researchers, but also to clinicians, doctors, translators, editors and publishers to be followed in their activities.
Martin L. Dalton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Naming the bronchopulmonary segments and the development of pulmonary surgery
The Annals of thoracic surgery, 1993Co-Authors: Will C. Sealy, Samuel R. Connally, Martin L. DaltonAbstract:An international agreement on bronchial nomenclature and anatomy was not reached until well after operations for bronchopulmonary segmental disease were well developed. R. C. Brock, in 1950, was the reporter of the efforts of The Thoracic Society of Great Britain to bring some order to this confused state. This Society delayed its action until an ad hoc committee made up of members from other countries and specialties met at the International Congress of Otorhinolaryngology in 1949. The anatomy and nomenclature of the bronchopulmonary segments was agreed upon. The Thoracic Society then accepted the report of the ad hoc committee. The system was followed closely by the first Nomina Anatomica in 1955. This report did not open new surgical vistas but was the marker indicating that pulmonary surgery was now mature.
David Kachlik - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Terminologia Anatomica after 17 years: inconsistencies, mistakes and new proposals.
Annals of anatomy = Anatomischer Anzeiger : official organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft, 2015Co-Authors: David Kachlik, Vladimir Musil, Vaclav BacaAbstract:The article deals with our experience of Terminologia Anatomica (TA) in fields of education (of systemic and topographic anatomy) and clinical medicine (teaching of clinical anatomy and courses for young physicians in endoscopy). The Anatomical nomenclature in Latin has been official for 120 years and its latest version for 17 years. Its main weak points should be discussed in public (or at least the discussion should be provoked), which is the reason for publishing the following findings and ensuing proposals. They are classified with seven groups: mistakes in TA, discrepancies in TA, multiplication of terms, synonyms in TA, identical terms for different structures, too long terms and missing terms in TA. The last group comprises missing terms in systemic anatomy, clinical anatomy, a paucity of terms in variant anatomy, in locomotion system and in topographic anatomy. Several attempts to draw attention to these have been made by the publication of inaccuracies in Nomina Anatomica and TA but this article summarizes and reviews current situation, emphasizing the weak points of the TA and brings several proposals and suggestions for further discussion.
-
Mistakes in the usage of Anatomical terminology in clinical practice.
Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky Olomouc Czechoslovakia, 2009Co-Authors: David Kachlik, Ivana Bozdechova, Pavel Cech, Vladimir Musil, Vaclav BacaAbstract:Background: Anatomical terminology serves as a basic communication tool in all the medical fields. Therefore Latin Anatomical nomenclature has been repetitively issued and revised from 1895 (Basiliensia Nomina Anatomica) until 1998, when the last version was approved and published as the Terminologia Anatomica (International Anatomical Terminology) by the Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology. Methods and results: A brief history of the terminology and nomenclature development is mentioned, along with the concept and contributions of the Terminologia Anatomica including the employed abbreviations. Examples of obsolete Anatomical terms and their current synonyms are listed. Clinicians entered the process of the nomenclature revision and this aspect is demonstrated with several examples of terms used in clinical fields only, some already incorporated in the Terminologia Anatomica and a few obsolete terms still alive in non-theoretical communication. Frequent mistakes in grammar and orthography are stated as well. Conclusion: Authors of the article strongly recommend the use of the recent revision of the Latin Anatomical nomenclature both in theoretical and clinical medicine.
-
Anatomical terminology and nomenclature: past, present and highlights
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy, 2008Co-Authors: David Kachlik, Vaclav Baca, Ivana Bozdechova, Pavel Cech, Vladimir MusilAbstract:The Anatomical terminology is a base for medical communication. It is elaborated into a nomenclature in Latin. Its history goes back to 1895, when the first Latin Anatomical nomenclature was published as Basiliensia Nomina Anatomica . It was followed by seven revisions ( Jenaiensia Nomina Anatomica 1935 , Parisiensia Nomina Anatomica 1955 , Nomina Anatomica 2nd to 6th edition 1960–1989). The last revision, Terminologia Anatomica , (TA) created by the Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology and approved by the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists, was published in 1998. Apart from the official Latin Anatomical terminology, it includes a list of recommended English equivalents. In this article, major changes and pitfalls of the nomenclature are discussed, as well as the clinical anatomy terms. The last revision (TA) is highly recommended to the attention of not only teachers, students and researchers, but also to clinicians, doctors, translators, editors and publishers to be followed in their activities.
Jerald D. Harris - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Confusing dinosaurs with mammals: Tetrapod phylogenetics and Anatomical terminology in the world of homology
Anatomical Record-advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology, 2004Co-Authors: Jerald D. HarrisAbstract:At present, three different systems of Anatomical nomenclature are available to researchers describing new tetrapod taxa: a nonstandardized traditional system erected in part by Sir Richard Owen and subsequently elaborated by Alfred Romer; a standardized system created for avians, the Nomina Anatomica Avium (NAA); and a standardized system for extant (crown-group) mammals, the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria (NAV). Conserved homologous structures widely distributed within the Tetrapoda are often granted different names in each system. The recent shift toward a phylogenetic system based on homology requires a concomitant shift toward a single nomenclatural system also based on both evolutionary and functional morphological homology. Standardized terms employed in the NAA and NAV should be perpetuated as far as possible basally in their respective phylogenies. Thus, NAA terms apply to nonavian archosaurs (or even all diapsids) and NAV terms apply to noncrown-group mammals and more basal synapsids. Taxa equally distant from both avians and crown-group mammals may maintain the traditional nonstandardized terminology until a universal Anatomical nomenclature for all tetrapods is constructed. © 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
-
Confusing dinosaurs with mammals: Tetrapod phylogenetics and Anatomical terminology in the world of homology
The anatomical record. Part A Discoveries in molecular cellular and evolutionary biology, 2004Co-Authors: Jerald D. HarrisAbstract:At present, three different systems of Anatomical nomenclature are available to researchers describing new tetrapod taxa: a nonstandardized traditional system erected in part by Sir Richard Owen and subsequently elaborated by Alfred Romer; a standardized system created for avians, the Nomina Anatomica Avium (NAA); and a standardized system for extant (crown-group) mammals, the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria (NAV). Conserved homologous structures widely distributed within the Tetrapoda are often granted different names in each system. The recent shift toward a phylogenetic system based on homology requires a concomitant shift toward a single nomenclatural system also based on both evolutionary and functional morphological homology. Standardized terms employed in the NAA and NAV should be perpetuated as far as possible basally in their respective phylogenies. Thus, NAA terms apply to nonavian archosaurs (or even all diapsids) and NAV terms apply to noncrown-group mammals and more basal synapsids. Taxa equally distant from both avians and crown-group mammals may maintain the traditional nonstandardized terminology until a universal Anatomical nomenclature for all tetrapods is constructed.
Lazar J. Greenfield - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Vascular Anatomy in Abdominal Surgery
Archives of Surgery, 1992Co-Authors: Lazar J. GreenfieldAbstract:This concise and attractive volume is the work of Dr VanDamme, who is a surgeon and anatomist in Louvain, Belgium, and his associate, Dr Bonte, who is Director of the Vesalius Institute for Anatomy, Louvain. The material is presented in five parts directed to the major arterial vessels. The first three parts about the celiac, superior, and inferior mesenteric arteries are followed by Part Four dealing with the paracolic arcade and the collateral circulation. Part Five, entitled "Practical Considerations," deals with a number of important Anatomical considerations related to operative procedures. The nomenclature used is predominantly American and familiar to surgeons, with additional French terms and Nomina Anatomica of Latin derivation where appropriate. The work represents 156 abdominal preparations investigated by means of arteriography, corrosion, and dissection. The dissection photographs are accompanied by detailed line drawings on excellent glossy paper. Anatomical variations for each region are described from the perspective
