Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

McBurney’s point: A critical review

  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1926-1967)

V. Conclusion

The writer ventures to suggest that if such a diagnostic landmark be neededclinically, “McBurney’s point” should be defined according to McBurney’s descriptions, or else should be deleted from usage, not because of varying accounts (for these discrepancies are unjustified) but due to supercedence by a more valuable location, such as the lateral point of trisection of the spino-umbilical line, or (omitting the umbilicus) the intersection of the lateral and transtubercular planes.

Radiological investigations have shown that the use of an anatomical point as a landmark for thenormal living appendix (in either supine or erect position) is both misleading and inaccurate. Apart altogether from the fact that eponymous names have been removed from current anatomical nomenclatures, the term “McBurney’s point” should therefore be deleted fromanatomical usage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barclay, A. E. (1936).The Digestive Tract. Cambridge. 2nd Ed.

  • Collins, D. C. (1932).Ann. Surg., 96, 1044.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeGaris, C. F. (1941).Ann. Surg., 113, 540.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, J. (1946).Anatomical Eponyms. London.

  • Fitzwilliams, D. C. L. (1913).Manual of Operative Surgery with Surgical Anatomy and Surface Markings. London.

  • Gibbons, R. H. (1891).N. Y. Med. J. 53, 452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladstone, R. J. & Wakeley, C. P. G. (1924).Brit. J. Surg., 11, 503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray’sAnatomy (1946). London. 29th Ed.

  • Handfield-Jones, R. M. & Porritt, A. E. (1943).The Essentials of Modern Surgery. Edinburgh. 2nd Ed.

  • Kelly, E. C. (Ed.) (1938).Med. Classics., 2, 506.

  • McBurney, C. (1888).N. Y. Med. J., 47, 719.

    Google Scholar 

  • (1889).N. Y. Med. J., 50, 676.

    Google Scholar 

  • (1890).N. Y. Med. J., 52, 329.

    Google Scholar 

  • (1891).Ann. Surg., 13, 233.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • (1891).Trans. Med. Soc., N. Y., 208.

  • (1892).Med. Rec., 41, 421.

    Google Scholar 

  • M’Lachlan, J. (1908).Applied Anatomy. Edinburgh. 4th Ed. Vol. 2.

  • Moody, R. O., Chamberlain, W. E. & Van Nuys, R.G. (1926).Amer. J. Anat. 37, 273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawling, L. B. (1940).Landmarks and Surface Markings of the Human Body. London. 8th Ed.

  • Roberts, W. E. (1937).Surface Anatomy. Sydney.

  • Shah, M. A. & Shah, M. (1945).Indian Med. Gazette, 80, 494.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stimson, L. A. (1890).N. Y. Med. J., 52, 449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd, T. W. (1915).The Clinical Anatomy of the Gastro- Intestinal Tract. London.

  • Treves, F. (1939).Surgial Applied Anatomy. London. 10th Ed.

  • Wakeley, C. P. G. (1933).J. Anat., Lond. 67, 277.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Ronan O’Rahilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

From the Department of Anatomy, University of Sheffield.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Rahilly, R. McBurney’s point: A critical review. Ir J Med Sci 23, 738–742 (1948). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02959366

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02959366

Search

Navigation