Proper heart’s nomenclature is very important in daily clinical practice and research studies, and when it is consistent, it can facilitate better communication between different medical specialists. The general rule of the anatomy is to describe organs and their structures in attitudinally correct position. However, the use of the old-fashioned Valentine position (where the heart is described as if it were standing on its apex) is still in use to describe important cardiac structures. Upon closer analysis, all main chambers of the heart and their associated subcomponents have mislabeled structures that should be renamed. In this article we aimed to emphasize the limitations of Valentinian nomenclature, present proper anatomical names of the most important heart’s structures and advocate to change certain mislabeled anatomical structures. Attitudinally correct designations presented in this study will benefit all medical specialties, and they will reinforce the importance of consistent orientational naming. Correct naming of heart’s structures will also help improve communication between different medical specialists.

O b j e c t i v e s: To evaluate the properties of natural sweetener solutions in whole organ preservation and assess their influence on the dimension, weight and shape of cardiac tissue samples in stated time intervals, up to a one-year period of observation.

B a c k g r o u n d: Tissue fixation is essential for biological sample examination. Many negative toxic effects of formaldehyde-based fixatives have forced us to seek alternatives for formaldehyde based solutions. It has been demonstrated that natural sweeteners can preserve small tissue samples well and that these solutions can be used in histopathological processes. However, their ability to preserve whole human organs are unknown.

M e t h o d s: A total of 30 swine hearts were investigated. Th ree study groups (n = 10 in each case) were formed and classifi ed on the type of fixative: (1) 10% formaldehyde phosphate-buffered solution (FPBS), (2) 10% alcohol-based honey solution (ABHS), (3) 10% water-based honey solution (WBHS). Samples were measured before fi xation and in the following time points: 24 hours, 72 hours, 168 hours, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months.

R e s u l t s: The WBHS failed to preserve heart samples and decomposition of tissues was observed one week after fixation. In half of the studied parameters, the ABHS had similar modifying tendencies as compared to FPBS. Th e overall condition of preserved tissue, weight, left ventricular wall thickness, right ventricular wall thickness and the diameter of the papillary muscle differed considerably.

C o n c l u s i o n s: The ABHS may be used as an alternative fi xative for macroscopic studies of cardiac tissue, whereas the WBHS is not suited for tissue preservation.