The use of a valid and common terminology would be an ideal base that all medical specialties are able to correspond with and to understand each other. Latin had been the "united" language which had been used for centuries; English partially replaced this language some decades ago. As a consequence, the IFAA (International Federation on Anatomical Associations) [1] included the English terms in the "International Anatomical Terminology". Unfortunately this "terminology" is not well accepted or frequently used by clinicians. What is more, clinicians and even anatomists partially are not aware that this terminology exists. Subsequently, the denial of the existing and valid anatomical terminology leads to a creation of a "new" clinical terminology which might be different among the various fields. One of the worst cases might be that new terms are created due to lacking knowledge. However, the creation of an internationally accepted terminology is not only deserved but more desperately needed. We would like to show this problem presenting following example: the sartorial branch of the saphenous nerve (SBSN).We stepped over this SBSN during a literature research for saphenous nerve blocks for regional anaesthetic purposes. The nerve is mentioned by Sabat and Kumar.[2] The authors list the sartorial branch (SBSN) as one terminal branch, the second to be the infrapatellar branch (IPBSN
AbstractMisinterpretation of terminology or new creations of anatomical terms can be observed worldwide. Occurring problems because of these invalid terms might be highlighted by an example. During a literature research concerning the saphenous nerve, the sartorial branch of the saphenous nerve was found. As this nerve does not exist in anatomical textbooks as well as in anatomical terminology, we searched for the origin of this branch. In a publication from more than 30 years ago, the reason of the creation of this odd nerve was dyslexia of some authors, reading "sartorial" instead of "saphenous". This gives reason to think about the pressure at universities to focus only on quantity and not on quality of papers. Literature research is sloppy as well as poor; the knowledge sometimes is even poorer, and in addition time to analyse the content of textbooks and papers are not taken. More dreadful is the fact that the manuscript underwent the regular review process, which indicates that the reviewer did not provide the anatomical knowledge as well. Therefore we are all, as scientist or reviewer, always required to research properly and to review only if we are sure to provide the responsibility of a correct judgement together with the anatomical background.