Annals of vascular surgery · 2025
The Discrepancies between Official Anatomical and Clinical Nomenclature in Vascular Surgery: How to Overcome It?
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vučinić Nikola, Pasternak Boris, Tanacković Siniša, Novaković Aleksa D, Marić Dušica, Erić Mirela, Nikolić Dragan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Discrepancies between anatomical and clinical terms-particularly in vascular surgery-can cause confusion, potentially leading to misdiagnosis or inappropriate treatment. The objective is to identify discrepancies between the anatomical terminology used in medical records related to vascular surgery and the standardized Terminologia Anatomica (TA) 2019, and suggest updates to improve accuracy and consistency.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 200 medical records was conducted using data from the electronic database of the Clinic for Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Clinical Center of Vojvodina. Anatomical terms extracted from the reports were cataloged and compared to TA 2019. Discrepancies were recorded, and data were statistically analyzed using Microsoft Excel 365.
RESULTS: Among 1,845 anatomical terms analyzed, 27.32% differed from the nomenclature in TA 2019. Eleven anatomical terms were either absent from or significantly different from those in TA 2019. Notably, 2 of these terms ranked among the 5 most frequent in clinical reports. Abbreviations were used in 79% of cases, and Latin was predominant for anatomical terminology (89.11%).
CONCLUSION: Significant discrepancies are evident between clinical and standardized anatomical terminology in vascular surgery.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 200 medical records was conducted using data from the electronic database of the Clinic for Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Clinical Center of Vojvodina. Anatomical terms extracted from the reports were cataloged and compared to TA 2019. Discrepancies were recorded, and data were statistically analyzed using Microsoft Excel 365.
RESULTS: Among 1,845 anatomical terms analyzed, 27.32% differed from the nomenclature in TA 2019. Eleven anatomical terms were either absent from or significantly different from those in TA 2019. Notably, 2 of these terms ranked among the 5 most frequent in clinical reports. Abbreviations were used in 79% of cases, and Latin was predominant for anatomical terminology (89.11%).
CONCLUSION: Significant discrepancies are evident between clinical and standardized anatomical terminology in vascular surgery.