Evolution of the Use of Terminologia Anatomica in Human Dissection Studies: Between Standardization and Tradition—A Literature Review

ABSTRACT With the publication of Terminologia Anatomica 2 (TA2) by FIPAT, efforts to unify and standardize the nomenclature used in the teaching and dissemination of human anatomy have been strengthened. However, the persistence of obsolete and ambiguous terms in the scientific literature raises questions about the true impact of this initiative. The aim of this study was to analyze the evolution of the use of official anatomical terminology in the scientific literature over the last decade. A literature review of descriptive dissection articles published in English was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and LILACS databases from 2015 to 2025. Official and non‐official anatomical terms were recorded and classified according to TA1 and TA2, with two periods distinguished, before the publication of TA2 and after the IFAA's TA2 adoption. Annual proportions of official anatomical terms relative to total terms (OAT/TAT) were calculated for each article. A total of 4228 terms were identified, including 2866 official terms and 1362 non‐official terms. The median OAT/TAT proportion per article was 68.75% (IQR 59.63%–77.91%), with the highest proportion of official term usage observed in 2025 (77.20%) and the lowest in 2015 (59.80%). This proportion differed significantly among years ( p = 0.0013), without a significant monotonic trend (ρ = 0.100; p = 0.150). The distribution of official and non‐official terms and their subgroups also differed significantly among years ( p < 0.0001; Cramér's V ≤ 0.11). Notably, the median number of synonyms per article increased significantly between periods ( p < 0.0001), partly reflecting the reclassification of terms considered official under TA1 as synonyms under TA2. These findings suggest that, despite TA2 and the efforts made to standardize the use of anatomical terminology, its adoption and use have been limited and inconsistent over time. The persistence of non‐official terminology reinforces the need to implement new strategies to achieve standardization in the use of anatomical nomenclature.