Applicability and critical analysis of the use of eponyms in Health Sciences

Abstract

Introduction: Specific words have been adopted to designate the several structures in Human Anatomy. However, the same structure has different names, usually derived from proper names (or Eponyms), which is still reflected in conceptual errors that complicate the Teaching and Learning of Anatomy in Multidisciplinary, Transdisciplinarity and Metadisciplinarity approaches. Within the current importance of the generalist, critical and humanistic background of the professional, the multiplicity of names of scientists and researchers attributed to anatomical structures has created real difficulties during the preparation, writing and reading of scientific papers, including the communication between Researchers and Professors. Objective: The aim of this study was to critically analyze the use of eponyms in Health Sciences, as well as compiling the eleven mains terms in which the same eponym has been used to identify at least two different structures. Results: Eponyms are not representatives of the first anatomists to describe structures or indicate some topographic, morphological or functional aspects associated with parts of the Human Body, and so must be replaced with a location, descriptive or etiological terminology that facilitates the structural understanding. Conclusion: Because of its clinical importance, eponyms will not completely disappear, but due to discrepancies and secondary confusions to its use, there have been many suggestions and impositions of anatomical societies to minimize their use.