Correction to: Did Antonio Vallisneri (1661–1730) really describe frontal sinus osteoma? Unexpected insights for paleo-neuroparasitology
- 103 Downloads
Correction to: Neurological Sciences (2018) 39:1275–1277
“The history of this condition was first collected by Félix Lagrange (1857– 1928) in 1904, who noted how the first historical case was described in the 16th century by Tomás Rodrigues da Veiga (1513-1579), professor of medicine at Coimbra University, Portugal .”
While focusing on the erroneous reading by Teed of Lagrange’s reference to Vallisneri’s description of frontal sinus osteoma, we inadvertently overlooked the fact that another chronological error lies in Lagrange’s 1904 work. He writes that da Veiga described his case of frontal sinus osteoma in 1506, yet he was only born seven years later in 1513. With a pattern similar to the one seen in the case of the Vallisneri reference, Teed in 1941 accepted Lagrange’s words at face value and, probably wishing to justify the discrepancy between the French author’s 1506 mention and the actual year of publication (1586, posthumous as da Veiga died in 1579), he re-elaborated this date as if da Veiga had really described the case in 1506. Surely, he died before the posthumous publication of 1586, but not in 1506.
While wishing to correct in our article this imprecise reference we mutuated from Teed’s work, to our surprise we have noticed that this was far from an incidental faux pas of ours since it appears to be quite widespread in the medical literature.
2001: Summers LE. Frontal sinus osteoma associated with cerebral abcesses formation: a case report. Surg Neurol 2001;55:235–239.
2005: Senior BA, Dubin MG. Bening tumours of the frontal sinus. In: Kountakis SE, Senior B, Draf W (Eds). The Frontal Sinus, Springer Science & Business Media.
2009: Erdogan N et al. A prospective study of paranasal sinus osteomas in 1889 cases: Changing patterns of localization. Laryngoscope. 2009;119(12):2355–2359.
2013: Sheikh SI, Hameed A. Fronto Ethmoid Osteoma-Case Report. PJMHS; 7(4) 1221–1223.
For this reason, we propose our rectification as a contribution of general value.