Development of anatomic science in the late middle ages: The roles played by Mondino de Liuzzi and Guido da Vigevano

Department of Neurosurgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA.
Neurosurgery (Impact Factor: 3.62). 10/2009; 65(4):787-93; discussion 793-4. DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000324991.45949.E4
Source: PubMed


Medical historians generally consider anatomic science, as we know it today, to have been established through the pioneering work of Vesalius during the Renaissance. Although this is largely true, detailed assessment of the scientific advances made in the late Middle Ages, though not as spectacular as those made during the Renaissance period, did pave the way and form a foundation for subsequent progress. During the two centuries of AD 1300 to 1500, several worthwhile advances occurred. Many universities, centers of learning excellence, were established throughout Europe, most notably in Italy. King Frederick II, the Holy Roman Emperor, established guidelines for medical education and practice that seem to parallel current regulations. Human cadaveric dissection was performed, after a hiatus of over 1700 years, as the foundation for the study of anatomy. Observation of human dissection became a requirement for medical students. A manual for anatomic dissection was written, printed, and published for the first time in history by Mondino de Liuzzi. His student, Guido da Vigevano, who also had an engineering background, established two "firsts" of his own: providing illustrations of anatomy and designing the first automobile in history. The authors believe that the contributions of these two key anatomists in the late Middle Ages should not be forgotten.

14 Reads
  • Source
    01/2010; 2(1):11-9.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564) was a master anatomist as well as an artistic genius. He dissected cadavers numerous times and developed a profound understanding of human anatomy. From 1508 to 1512, Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in Rome. His Sistine Chapel frescoes are considered one of the monumental achievements of Renaissance art. In the winter of 1511, Michelangelo entered the final stages of the Sistine Chapel project and painted 4 frescoes along the longitudinal apex of the vault, which completed a series of 9 central panels depicting scenes from the Book of Genesis. It is reported that Michelangelo concealed an image of the brain in the first of these last 4 panels, namely, the Creation of Adam. Here we present evidence that he concealed another neuronanatomic structure in the final panel of this series, the Separation of Light From Darkness, specifically a ventral view of the brainstem. The Separation of Light From Darkness is an important panel in the Sistine Chapel iconography because it depicts the beginning of Creation and is located directly above the altar. We propose that Michelangelo, a deeply religious man and an accomplished anatomist, intended to enhance the meaning of this iconographically critical panel and possibly document his anatomic accomplishments by concealing this sophisticated neuroanatomic rendering within the image of God.
    Neurosurgery 05/2010; 66(5):851-61; discussion 860-1. DOI:10.1227/01.NEU.0000368101.34523.E1 · 3.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Decompressive craniectomy (DC)-a surgical procedure that involves removal of part of the skull to accommodate brain swelling-has been used for many years in the management of patients with brain oedema and/or intracranial hypertension, but its place in contemporary practice remains controversial. Results from a recent trial showed that early (neuroprotective) DC was not superior to medical management in patients with diffuse traumatic brain injury. An ongoing trial is investigating the clinical and cost effectiveness of secondary DC as a last-tier therapy for post-traumatic refractory intracranial hypertension. With regard to ischaemic stroke (malignant middle cerebral artery infarction), a recent Cochrane review concluded that DC improves survival compared with medical management, but that a higher proportion of DC survivors experience moderately severe or severe disability. Although many patients have a good outcome, the issue of DC-related disability raises important ethical issues. As DC and subsequent cranioplasty are associated with a number of complications, indiscriminate use of this surgery is not appropriate. Here, we review the evidence and present considerations regarding surgical technique, ethics and cost-effectiveness of DC. Prospective clinical trials and cohort studies are essential to enable optimization of patient care and outcomes.
    Nature Reviews Neurology 06/2013; 9(7). DOI:10.1038/nrneurol.2013.106 · 15.36 Impact Factor
Show more