This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:—
I have always felt that in any formal terminology the primary purpose to be achieved was the clear and concise exchange of information and ideas. Unfortunately, anatomists have not always considered clinical convenience in setting up word lists, and clinicians, especially in America, seem to abhor formality in names.At the present time the BNA, which is just being adopted in some clinical circles, is being either discarded or markedly altered in anatomic circles. The current suggested changes seem to follow nationalistic manners of thought, if not actual political boundary lines.To me the statement in the editorial in The Journal, July 17, "Injury to the recurrent laryngeal nerve was recorded in 8.2 per cent of the cases. In no instance was it bilateral or permanent" is perfectly clear and anatomically accurate. I am a little surprised that Dr. John F. Quinlan of San Francisco finds grounds
Batson OV. RECURRENT LARYNGEAL NERVE. JAMA. 1937;109(19):1562-1563. doi:10.1001/jama.1937.02780450066027