Yoko Tabira

Seiichi Inoue, Mi-Sun Hur, Yoko Tabira, Norio Kitagawa, Aysun Uz, R. Shane Tubbs, Joe Iwanaga. Anat Cell Biol -0001;0:. https://doi.org/10.5115/acb.26.209

The term “clinical anatomy” is widely used in education and research, yet its conceptual boundaries continue to be interpreted in various ways. Prior consensus‐based efforts have emphasized integration, collaboration, and clinical relevance as central features of the field and have provided an important foundation for interdisciplinary engagement. At the same time, ongoing changes in academic structure, medical education, and interdisciplinary biomedical science raise important questions regarding how clinical anatomy can sustain its scientific identity and long‐term relevance. Building upon prior discussions, this article argues that the continued maturation of clinical anatomy depends on the integration of conceptual frameworks with the sustained production of rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful scholarly contributions. Historical and contemporary examples alike demonstrate that the influence of clinical anatomy has been shaped through contributions that directly advanced clinical science and practice. Accordingly, continued emphasis on methodological rigor, reproducibility, clinically meaningful contribution, and educational accountability may be essential to the field's future development and relevance.

Andrew T. Casteel, Lauren M. Dumont, Rarinthorn Samrid, Yoko Tabira, Kazzara Raeburn, Kathleen Bubb, Noritaka Komune, Aaron S. Dumont, Miguel Angel Reina, Joe Iwanaga, R. Shane Tubbs. Anat Cell Biol -0001;0:. https://doi.org/10.5115/acb.25.376

Anatomical education and research are built on the generosity of individuals who donate their bodies to advance science. However, the terminology traditionally used to describe these individuals—“specimens,” “cadavers,” or “cadaveric specimens”—risks objectifying the donor and obscuring their humanity. This paper examines the historical roots of depersonalized language, its persistence in contemporary research, and the ethical implications of its continuing use. Drawing on comparisons with the organ donation and transplantation literature and on calls within anatomy for reforming terminology, we propose humanizing alternatives such as “body donor,” “donor body,” or “anatomical donor.” The discussion emphasizes how terminology influences pedagogy, professional culture, and public trust in body donation programs. By embracing more respectful language, anatomists, surgeons, physicians, and dentists can better honor the gift of body donation and highlight the humanity of those who continue to teach us even after death, for example, Hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae .

Purpose: Despite its close anatomical relationship with the superficial medial collateral ligament (sMCL) and deep medial collateral ligament (dMCL), the primary stabilisers of the medial knee, the anterior arm of the semimembranosus (SM) tendon has been scarcely studied anatomically. In addition, there is concern about potential damage to the anterior arm during the tibial cut in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the anatomical location of the SM's anterior arm and clarify the anatomical relationship with the MCL using gross and histological evaluation. Methods: Twenty‐two formalin‐fixed cadaveric knees were used. The distance from the joint line to the anterior arm, the anterior arm′s length, and the entry ratio of the anterior arm underneath the sMCL were measured. Four equal‐thickness sections were harvested from the medial tibial condyle, including the anterior arm and MCL, and stained with Masson's trichrome, hematoxylin, and eosin. The anatomical relationship between the anterior arm, sMCL, and dMCL was evaluated. Result: The vertical distances from the joint line to the proximal and distal margin of the anterior arm are 8.9 ± 1.5 mm and 16.8 ± 1.5 mm, respectively. The entry ratio of the anterior arm underneath the sMCL was 0.53 ± 0.21. The anterior arm fibres intersected with distally extending dMCL fibres. The loose connective tissue was located at the junction of the sMCL, anterior arm, and dMCL. Conclusion: Anterior arm of the SM tendon shares a common attachment area with the dMCL tibial attachment and is connected to the sMCL via loose connective tissue. The measurements obtained in the present study may serve as useful indicators for avoiding damage to the anterior arm during tibial cut in TKA. Level of Evidence: Level Ⅳ.

Determining an appropriate sample size in human cadaveric studies remains a long‐standing and unresolved challenge. Unlike other basic science fields, anatomical research is constrained by factors such as limited human donor availability, cultural considerations, and ethical restrictions. Despite these limitations, researchers are often asked to justify sample sizes, yet no standardized guidelines currently exist. To quantitatively assess sample sizes in recent human cadaveric studies and propose evidence‐based recommendations for future research, a PubMed search was conducted on February 26, 2024, using the term human cadaveric study . The articles published in 2023 and 2024 were screened, yielding 770 eligible studies. Data extracted included the total sample size, number of classified groups, and journal impact factor (IF). Descriptive statistics, linear regression, and correlation analyses were performed. Continuous variables were summarized using medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). The median sample size was 11.5 (IQR: 7–20), and 47.9% of studies used 10 or fewer specimens. The median number of classified groups was 3 (IQR: 2–4). Linear regression showed that studies dividing specimens into 2–6 groups often failed to meet the recommended sample size per group based on regression modeling. No significant correlation was found between sample size and journal IF ( r = −0.062, p = 0.115). Most cadaveric studies rely on small sample sizes due to inherent constraints, yet many still attempt a subgroup analysis without sufficient statistical power. Although flexibility is essential in anatomical research, we recommend a minimum total sample size of 10 for basic studies and at least five samples per group for those involving classification. Cadaveric sample size alone does not predict journal impact, highlighting the importance of methodological rigor over quantity.

Devendra Shekhawat, Kristen Rizzuto, Rarinthorn Samrid, Chung Yoh Kim, Yoko Tabira, Kazzara Raeburn, Kathleen Bubb, Aaron S. Dumont, Joe Iwanaga, Marios Loukas, Mahindra Kumar Anand, R. Shane Tubbs. Anat Cell Biol -0001;0:. https://doi.org/10.5115/acb.24.273

Ligaments have been extensively studied in anatomy and are traditionally defined as structures that connect bones and contribute to joint stability. However, a universally accepted definition of “ligament” remains elusive. Many structures classified as ligaments do not connect bones, such as the ligamentum arteriosum, raising questions about the criteria used for their designation. Moreover, distinguishing ligaments from tendons presents a significant challenge because of their shared histological characteristics and the lack of a clear, standardized definition of “ligament”. Historically, ligaments have been named primarily on the basis of their gross anatomical appearance rather than well‐defined structural or functional criteria. Ambiguities in nomenclature such as the interchangeable use of “patellar ligament” and “patellar tendon” further complicate classification. Additionally, dissection bias can lead to the artificial identification of ligaments because traditional dissection techniques can isolate tissue layers in a manner that creates the illusion of distinct ligament structures. Given these limitations, gross anatomical dissection alone is insufficient to confirm the presence of a ligament, necessitating histological validation based on a fundamental definition. Establishing a precise classification system that differentiates traditional bone‐to‐bone ligaments from other connective structures is imperative. Close collaboration between anatomists and surgeons is essential for refining anatomical definitions because inaccurate classifications can have direct implications for clinical practice, particularly in ligament reconstruction. A research‐driven, standardized definition of ligaments can enhance anatomical education and improve surgical precision.

Celia V. Mayne, Rarinthorn Samrid, Yoko Tabira, Kazzara Raeburn, Kathleen Bubb, Joe Iwanaga, Samir Anadkat, R. Shane Tubbs. Anat Cell Biol -0001;0:. https://doi.org/10.5115/acb.24.184

Purpose: The carina, located at the bifurcation of the trachea, has been regarded as a part of the trachea. Although clinically useful as an anatomical landmark, studies of its detailed morphology are lacking in the literature. Methods: The distal trachea and left and right main bronchi were harvested from 32 cadavers and the carina studied using microsurgical dissection, endoscopy, micro-CT, and histology. Results: The right bronchial cartilages were most commonly involved in forming the carina (72.41%), and the left bronchial cartilages were the second most commonly involved (37.93%). The carinal cartilages were slightly deviated to the left of midline in 4.37%. Micro-CT clearly identified the contributions to the carinal cartilages. Conclusion: Although the carina has been regarded as a part of the distal trachea, the present study found that most of the carinal cartilages were composed of the most inferior tracheal ring or bronchial cartilage(s). The right main bronchial cartilage was the most common contributor, and the left main bronchus was the second most common contributor. Additional knowledge of this structure can benefit patient care.