|
- IRMS - Nicolae Testemitanu SUMPh
- 1. COLECȚIA INSTITUȚIONALĂ
- MedEspera: International Medical Congress for Students and Young Doctors
- MedEspera 2020
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12710/11904
Title: | Classification of cervical fasciae |
Authors: | Spataru, Alexandru |
Keywords: | divergences;description;neck fasciae |
Issue Date: | 2020 |
Publisher: | MedEspera |
Citation: | SPATARU, Alexandru. Classification of cervical fasciae. In: MedEspera: the 8th Internat. Medical Congress for Students and Young Doctors: abstract book. Chișinău: S. n., 2020, p. 239-240. |
Abstract: | Introduction. Study of cervical fasciae represents major difficulties, because the authors did
not synchronize over the time a common opinion about the fascia and terminology’s classification. In the manuals of anatomy in English, French and Russian the same formations
are specified differently. Thus, the prevertebral fascia is determined by the French anatomists
as being aponeurosis. English anatomists name it – “alar fascia” and the Russian literature,
which is based on the classification given in the manual of V. N. Shevkunenko, considers that
it is correct to name it fascia prevertebralis, which participates in the formation of the
respective muscle sheaths. Taking this fact into account the neck fascia needs to be regarded
through the practical approach related to the clarification of the ways of purulent propagations
and elaboration of surgical approach methods. It is well known that it is difficult to establish
and systemize the number of fasciae on the neck, the fact which is determined by the age,
physical development, gender, method of investigation etc.
Aim of the study. Thus, the goal of this work is the elucidation of author’s priorities in the
study, description and classification of cervical fasciae.
Results. The main cause of the divergences and contradictions in the description of the neck
fasciae is determined by the lack of common concepts, generally accepted, about the structure
of fascia and other connective-fibrous formations. That is why practically each connectivefibrous
structure in the working field can be named (and it is frequently named) fascia, also the
passion for the “fasciology” led to the fact that the term fascia was assigned even to typical
adventitia – coverings of organs and sometimes even a portion of the organ covering, for
example the pharynx (fascia faringobasilaris). Thus, the additional searching for the “correct”
names of neck fasciae and the copyright in their description seem to be inopportune because of
the “limitation status”, including the incertitude of the main concepts (tissue, fascia,
aponeureosis, laminae, plates, etc.). Now the term of “fascia” is unanimously accepted,
notwithstanding that it has an indicative character over a concrete structure, but it corresponds
sufficiently to the existent idea about fasciae as connectivefibrous coverings of different
expression and character – from dense fibrous to thin, lax, cellulous tissue.
Conclusions. Now, there are a lot of vaguenesses regarding the anatomical terminology, but
these historical “mistakes” do not influence significantly the practice. And the “reconciliation”
of the parties can be reached by the strict observation of the unique anatomic law – Nomina
Anatomica. |
URI: | https://medespera.asr.md/wp-content/uploads/ABSTRACT-BOOK.pdf http://repository.usmf.md/handle/20.500.12710/11904 |
Appears in Collections: | MedEspera 2020
|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
|