Doctors find totally new, undiscovered part of the human body

The interesting part to me isn't that this was discovered, but that it was discovered so late in the game. This isn't merely a reclassification of existing information of a known structure, this is the classification of previously unknown tissue.

Medical science wasn't aware that this structure was in the body doing what it was doing, the proof comes from the postulations from the 1800's suggesting that a structure like this -must- be present in the leg for it to work as it does.

So, was this ligament considered part of the iliotibial band or crural fascia running on the interior of the knee?

So much for medical science. ...much less sports science!

MichaelPMaccabee
This isn't merely a reclassification of existing information of a known structure, this is the classification of previously unknown tissue.

I can't agree with this part. The older anatomical diagram I posted in my second post shows the LCL splitting into two strands, just like in the OP photo, and joining to the top edge of the tibia and fibula respectively, just like the 'new' tendon in the OP photo.

To me it appears as though the existence of the tissue has been documented before.

Regards,
Rewey

boymonkey74
Anyone else getting hungry looking at the pic? reminds me of ribs

Amazing OP S&F

No!! LOL!! Where do you eat ribs! hahahah

I bet "HOUSE" new about that body part!!

I did read about this earlier today. Amazing find! (MSN news when I logged in this morning)

reply to post by Klassified


One of my old physiology profs posted about this online today and said it is still a bone of contention amongst anatomists because one camp wants to call this a new ligament and the other camp is saying it is a natural variant of the bifurcation of the lcl. So it definitely isn't written in stone that this is "newly discovered" yet.

rimjaja
reply to post by Klassified

 

One of my old physiology profs posted about this online today and said it is still a bone of contention amongst anatomists because one camp wants to call this a new ligament and the other camp is saying it is a natural variant of the bifurcation of the lcl. So it definitely isn't written in stone that this is "newly discovered" yet.

lol. That's about par for the course among academia, isn't it? They'll have to battle it out until one or the other concedes.

It was a ligament of their imagination.


(Totally just ripped that off.)

Rewey

MichaelPMaccabee
This isn't merely a reclassification of existing information of a known structure, this is the classification of previously unknown tissue.

I can't agree with this part. The older anatomical diagram I posted in my second post shows the LCL splitting into two strands, just like in the OP photo, and joining to the top edge of the tibia and fibula respectively, just like the 'new' tendon in the OP photo.

To me it appears as though the existence of the tissue has been documented before.

Regards,
Rewey

en.wikipedia.org...

That is the craziest part, man.

The LCL is fibular, it doesn't attach to the tibia. I know how obvious this photograph looks, and I am flabbergasted to the point of near disbelief that this hasn't been classified before now.

As I continue to look at this, I think you are seeing the Popliteus in the image you posted.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


It was thought to exist more than 150 years ago.
Way to go doctors!
Haha

rimjaja
reply to post by Klassified

 

One of my old physiology profs posted about this online today and said it is still a bone of contention amongst anatomists because one camp wants to call this a new ligament and the other camp is saying it is a natural variant of the bifurcation of the lcl. So it definitely isn't written in stone that this is "newly discovered" yet.

But if this is a natural variant of the LCL connecting to the tibia, wouldn't the difference in function itself warrant a it's own seperation from the LCL? I would argue that it does, but I've got to keep looking at the science of this.

When they did knee surgery, they probably just cut through the tendon because the books did not say it needed to be there. If you are taught a method of surgery, you repeat the surgery as taught. I wonder how many surgeons have questioned this when they did the surgery, I bet a lot. But if that is the way it was supposed to be done, than I guess it was done that way.

I can't see repairing a knee without disturbing this tendon. I doubt if anything will come of this. Within six months everything will be forgotten about this article probably.

I just read this article linked below on my phone over lunch. I think this does a much better job of explaining the history of this ligament than the MSN article in the OP.

Surgeons discover quirky knee ligament all over again

A few quotes from that article:

About 150 years ago, a prestigious surgeon in Paris found a new body part while dissecting cadavers. He described the structure as a pearly, "fibrous band" on the outside of the bones in the knee.

Then in the 1970s, the mysterious band of tissue reappeared in the medical literature every now and then. It went by several names.

Dr. Johan Bellemans and his team at the University Hospital Leuven described the ligament a few months ago in the Journal of Anatomy. They named it the anterolateral ligament, or ALL, and they offered the first clear data on what it's function is.

"We've known for years that there was a hardened, fibrous tissue in this location," he tells Shots. "And that this area of tissue plays some role. So it's not such a dramatic discovery but kind of a rediscovery — or a refocusing of attention."

I think this article explains the situation much more clearly. They didn't discover it, they accurately identified and described its function. I think the MSN article in the OP highlights the quality of journalism found at MSN.

"OMG! We just found a new ligament! LOLZ!" (MSN, Nov 2013)

I mean, how inaccurate is the actual MSN headline: Doctors find totally new, undiscovered part of the human body.

Uh, no they didn't, MSN. No.

Regards,
Rewey

You would think with all the MRI's done through out the years this would have been sorted out long ago..

AliceBleachWhite

Very interesting news. S+F!

Cue the "Science doesn't know everything, therefore [insert logical fallacy or false assumption here]" crowd.

The real beauty of science is that we DON'T know everything.
(As well as it being it's actual purpose....)

I think we've had some knee jerk reactions on this thread.
It is hard to believe this story could be accurate, but who nose?

reply to post by Rewey

Notice that even Science Daily(OP quoted source) uses the word "new" in their article. So MSN isn't the only one guilty of a little sensationalism. The NPR article you cite, sounds a bit more balanced in its approach. Thanks for posting it.

A quote from your source:

So why have doctors overlooked the the ligament for decades?

"It's not so easy to find," Bellemans says. "If you ask even the most experienced surgeon to look for the ALL, they wouldn't find it. It's in an area that we don't usually see during surgery."

For many doctors, this will indeed be "new". :-)

Im pretty sure people knew about that and called that LCL as well.

A doctor operating, looks at it, refers back to his med school, ah, its LCL, looks same, beside each other and possibly connect.

reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread9814

edit on 2013-11-08T16:33:07-06:00pmFriday11Friday33kAmerica/Chicagopmb by calmlikeabomb2 because: (no reason given)