open access

Vol 79, No 1 (2020)
REVIEW ARTICLES
Published online: 2019-04-19
Submitted: 2018-11-14
Accepted: 2018-12-31
Get Citation

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

P. P. Chmielewski, B. Strzelec
DOI: 10.5603/FM.a2019.0047
·
Pubmed: 31025702
·
Folia Morphol 2020;79(1):1-14.

open access

Vol 79, No 1 (2020)
REVIEW ARTICLES
Published online: 2019-04-19
Submitted: 2018-11-14
Accepted: 2018-12-31

Abstract

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.

Abstract

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.

Get Citation

Keywords

anatomy, teaching, anatomical nomenclature, anatomical terminology, clinical anatomy, gross anatomy, Terminologia Anatomica

About this article
Title

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

Journal

Folia Morphologica

Issue

Vol 79, No 1 (2020)

Pages

1-14

Published online

2019-04-19

DOI

10.5603/FM.a2019.0047

Pubmed

31025702

Bibliographic record

Folia Morphol 2020;79(1):1-14.

Keywords

anatomy
teaching
anatomical nomenclature
anatomical terminology
clinical anatomy
gross anatomy
Terminologia Anatomica

Authors

P. P. Chmielewski
B. Strzelec

References (22)
  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.
  2. Burdan F, Dworzański W, Cendrowska-Pinkosz M, et al. Anatomical eponyms - unloved names in medical terminology. Folia Morphol. 2016; 75(4): 413–438.
  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.
  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.
  7. Hirsch BE. Does the Terminologia Anatomica really matter? Clin Anat. 2011; 24(4): 503–504.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  11. Kachlik D, Musil V, Baca V. Terminologia Anatomica after 17 years: inconsistencies, mistakes and new proposals. Ann Anat. 2015; 201: 8–16.
  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.
  13. Kachlik D, Musil V, Baca V. Contribution to the anatomical nomenclature concerning upper limb anatomy. Surg Radiol Anat. 2017; 39(4): 405–417.
  14. Kachlik D, Musil V, Baca V. Contribution to the anatomical nomenclature concerning lower limb anatomy. Surg Radiol Anat. 2018; 40(5): 537–562.
  15. Krmpotić-Nemanić J, Vinter I. Incorrect medical terms in terminologia anatomica. Ann Anat. 2003; 185(2): 195–196.
  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.
  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.
  18. van Riet R, Van Glabbeek F, Bortier H. Crinis radii: a name for the distal radius. Clin Anat. 2002; 15(5): 375–376.
  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.
  20. Whitmore I. Terminologia anatomica: new terminology for the new anatomist. Anat Rec. 1999; 257(2): 50–53.
  21. Whitworth JA. Should eponyms be abandoned? No. BMJ. 2007; 335(7617): 425.
  22. Woywodt A, Matteson E. Should eponyms be abandoned? Yes. BMJ. 2007; 335(7617): 424.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By  "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl