Reflections on eponyms in musculoskeletal radiology: enhancing communication and pellucidity in patient care
Published Date: 24th June 2025
Publication Authors: Iyengar. KP
Eponyms have long been a fundamental aspect of medical terminology, offering a concise way to denote anatomical structures, imaging patterns, and diagnostic techniques. Associating a name with a particular finding not only acknowledges the contributions of pioneers in the field but also fosters effective communication and learning among healthcare professionals. However, their continued use raises important discussions about clarity, inclusivity, and the evolving nature of medical language.
Recently, I experienced this tradition from a different perspective when my colleagues and I introduced the BAASIK (B-Botchu, Bipin, A-Agrawal, A-Ankit, S- Sindhura, I-Iyengar, K- Kapil) technique in musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging [1]. The process was both humbling and intellectually stimulating, prompting me to reflect on the deeper implications of medical eponyms—terms we often use without question. As I advance in the field of radiology, I have come to recognize both the advantages and limitations of eponyms, particularly in light of recent innovations.
Classic examples such as the “Iyengar–Botchu Confluence” of the medial knee and the “Moustache Sign” for L5/S1 spondylolisthesis illustrate how eponyms encapsulate intricate radiological concepts [2, 3]. More recently, our team has introduced new terms, including the “BAASIK technique” for ultrasound-guided single injection technique for dual pathologies and the “Crater sign of BRIK” acronym as a new ancillary sign associated with lateral patellar dislocation [4]. These designations aim to enhance precision and streamline clinical discussions. However, while eponyms can aid recall, they may also introduce ambiguity, necessitating additional context for those unfamiliar with their origins.
« Back