PubMed · 8337302
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R I Neves, E K Manders. 1993. Using the laser pointer as a teaching tool.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199308000-00048
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Andreas Vesalius was born in Brussels on December 31, 1514. After having spent some disappointing years at the Universities of Louvain and Paris, he graduated as Doctor of Medicine in Padua on December 5, 1537. The next day he was appointed as a teacher of both human anatomy and surgery. During the 6 years he held this chair, Vesalius engaged in impressive academic activities and published three masterly anatomic books: Tabulae Anatomicae Sex, De Humani Corporis Fabrica Libri Septem, and Epitome. The last two works contain anatomic woodcuts of incomparable artistic quality by Titian's pupils (by Stefan v. Calcar in particular). In 1544, at the age of 28, Vesalius gave up his chair and took up service as a court physician, first with Emperor Charles V and later with his son, Philip II of Spain. He died in 1564 on the small Greek island of Zante on return from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The gist of Vesalius' teaching was his conviction that valid anatomic knowledge could be gained only through dissection of the human corpse and not through the study of the traditional texts. Vesalius rid the study of human anatomy of mythic speculations, which had encrusted it for two millennia. Through Vesalius' work, human anatomy became an empirical science. Like Copernicus, Kepler, Bruno, and Galileo, Vesalius was one of the initiators of the new science. The tables of osteology and of the spine in Fabrica and Epitome are most impressive. Much of the nomenclature used for the spine today can be credited to him.
BACKGROUND: There is a marked conservative tendency to be found in anatomic descriptions, with a seeming reluctance on the part of acknowledged experts to test new theories by returning to direct studies of gross anatomy. This tendency has become manifest to us during recent attempts to review the structure and function of the heart. METHODS: We have reviewed our recent experience in trying to describe the structure and development of the atrial septum and arterial roots, attempting at the same time to establish the place of semantic as opposed to morphologic factors in disagreements on these topics. RESULTS: Dissection of the structures separating the right atrium from the left atrium shows a fundamental difference between the infolded superior rim of the oval foramen, made up of the atrial walls, versus the make up of the sinus and atrioventricular septums, which are true septal structures. Analysis of the arterial roots shows that the major feature is the semilunar attachment of the valvar leaflets, an arrangement not ideally described in terms of an annulus. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding of details of cardiac anatomy, as set out in standard textbooks, is hindered by a reluctance on the part of some to accept material presented on the basis of straightforward gross dissection. Instead, there is a seeming desire to depend on conventional wisdom, often unsupported by anatomic fact. Such controversies can be ameliorated by appropriate recognition to contributions of gross morphology and by using simple words to describe the observed anatomic features.