Anatomical position of the Vomeronasal Organ in postnatal humans

Citation
Td. Smith et al., Anatomical position of the Vomeronasal Organ in postnatal humans, ANN ANATOMY, 183(5), 2001, pp. 475-479
Citations number
20
Language
INGLESE
art.tipo
Article
Categorie Soggetti
Experimental Biology
Journal title
ANNALS OF ANATOMY-ANATOMISCHER ANZEIGER
ISSN journal
0940-9602 → ACNP
Volume
183
Issue
5
Year of publication
2001
Pages
475 - 479
Database
ISI
SICI code
0940-9602(200109)183:5<475:APOTVO>2.0.ZU;2-5
Abstract
In the last decade or so, there has been a renewed interest in the adult hu man vomeronasal organ (VNO). Studies have yielded sometimes disparate findi ngs about the microscopic structure of the organ and its supporting tissues . Such varied descriptions may be due to examination of different regions o f the VNO, individual variation of VNOs among humans, or the presence of mu ltiple, non-homologous structures that bear false resemblance to the human VNO. A histological description of the spatial relationship of the human VN O to other nasal septal elements is needed to ensure that all investigators are examining the same regions and homologous structures. Histologically s ectioned nasal septa from 22 human cadavers (1 child, 21 adults) were exami ned grossly and by light microscopy for the VNO. Using histological section s, the position of the VNO relative to other structures was estimated. Sect ions containing the VNO were retrospectively compared to scaled photographi c slides of the unsectioned septa to identify surface landmarks. Human VNOs varied in anteroposterior and superoinferior position relative to the ante rior nasal spine and the nasal cavity floor. In the absence of a visible du ct opening, the only reliable surface marker, no consistent surface marking s were noted for precise location. VNOs were frequently found superior to s wellings associated with the paraseptal and/or septal cartilages. Such find ings demonstrate that the human VNO is positionally variable, which may hav e contributed to previous conflicting findings on presence versus absence. Furthermore, our findings support recent suggestions that the VNO may have been misidentified by some investigators, and that its opening can be easil y confused with other structures.