- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "nomenclature"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Amyloid nomenclature 2018: recommendations by the International Society of Amyloidosis (ISA) nomenclature committee(Taylor & Francis, 2018-10-02) Benson, Merrill D.; Buxbaum, Joel N.; Eisenberg, David S.; Merlini, Giampaolo; Saraiva, Maria J. M.; Sekijima, Yoshiki; Sipe, Jean D.; Westermark, Per; Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, School of MedicineThe nomenclature committee of the International Society of Amyloidosis (ISA) meets every second year to discuss and formulate recommendations. The conclusions from the discussion at the XVI International Symposium on Amyloidosis in Kumamoto, Japan, 25–29 March 2018 and afterwards are summarized in this Nomenclature Article. From having recommended the use of the designation “amyloid fibril” for in vivo material only, ISA’s nomenclature committee now accepts its use more broadly following the international scientific literature. However, it is important always to stress the origin of the β-fibrils in order to avoid misunderstanding. Given the more broad use of the word “amyloid” several classes of amyloid fibrils may be distinguished. For the medical in vivo situation, and to be included in the amyloid nomenclature list, “amyloid” still means mainly extracellular tissue deposits of protein fibrils, recognized by specific properties, such as green-yellow birefringence after staining with Congo red. It should also be underlined that in vivo amyloid fibrils, in addition to the main protein contain associated compounds, particularly serum amyloid P-component (SAP) and proteoglycans, mainly heparan sulfate proteoglycan. With this definition there are presently 36 human amyloid proteins of which 14 appear only associated with systemic amyloidosis and 19 as localized forms. Three proteins can occur both as localized and systemic amyloidosis. Strictly intracellular aggregates are not included in this list.Item Recommended standardized anatomic terminology of the posterior female pelvis and vulva based on a structured medical literature review(Elsevier, 2021) Hill, Audra Jolyn; Balgobin, Sunil; Mishra, Kavita; Jeppson, Peter C.; Wheeler, Thomas, II; Mazloomdoost, Donna; Anand, Mallika; Ninivaggio, Cara; Hamner, Jennifer; Bochenska, Katarzyna; Mama, Saifuddin T.; Balk, Ethan M.; Corton, Marlene M.; Delancey, John; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of MedicineBackground Anatomic terminology in both written and verbal forms has been shown to be inaccurate and imprecise. Objective Here, we aimed to (1) review published anatomic terminology as it relates to the posterior female pelvis, posterior vagina, and vulva; (2) compare these terms to “Terminologia Anatomica,” the internationally standardized terminology; and (3) compile standardized anatomic terms for improved communication and understanding. Study Design From inception of the study to April 6, 2018, MEDLINE database was used to search for 40 terms relevant to the posterior female pelvis and vulvar anatomy. Furthermore, 11 investigators reviewed identified abstracts and selected those reporting on posterior female pelvic and vulvar anatomy for full-text review. In addition, 11 textbook chapters were included in the study. Definitions of all pertinent anatomic terms were extracted for review. Results Overall, 486 anatomic terms were identified describing the vulva and posterior female pelvic anatomy, including the posterior vagina. “Terminologia Anatomica” has previously accepted 186 of these terms. Based on this literature review, we proposed the adoption of 11 new standardized anatomic terms, including 6 regional terms (anal sphincter complex, anorectum, genital-crural fold, interlabial sulcus, posterior vaginal compartment, and sacrospinous-coccygeus complex), 4 structural terms (greater vestibular duct, anal cushions, nerve to the levator ani, and labial fat pad), and 1 anatomic space (deep postanal space). In addition, the currently accepted term rectovaginal fascia or septum was identified as controversial and requires further research and definition before continued acceptance or rejection in medical communication. Conclusion This study highlighted the variability in the anatomic nomenclature used in describing the posterior female pelvis and vulva. Therefore, we recommended the use of standardized terminology to improve communication and education across medical and anatomic disciplines.