Abstract
Dear Editor-in-chief,
I appreciate Dr. Wes Baumgartner’s thoughtful critique on the use of the term coelomitis and his detailed analysis 1 in the July 2024 issue of JVDI. However, I would like to present an alternative perspective on this matter.
Dr. Baumgartner raises a valid point regarding the traditional use of terms such as peritonitis and pleuritis, which refer to inflammation of the lining of specific body cavities in mammals. However, it is essential to consider the anatomical differences in species that lack a diaphragm, such as many birds, reptiles, and amphibians. In these species, the coelom refers to the primary body cavity that is not subdivided by a diaphragm into thoracic and abdominal cavities, as it is in mammals. Therefore, the term coelomitis specifically refers to inflammation of the lining of this undivided coelomic cavity. Just as peritonitis and pleuritis accurately describe inflammation of the peritoneal and pleural linings, respectively, coelomitis serves a similar function by denoting inflammation of the celomic lining. Additionally, the term coelomitis avoids redundancy and respects the unique anatomical structures of non-mammalian species, where mammalian-specific terms might lead to ambiguity or misinterpretation.
Although serocoelomitis 10 might be technically more accurate, as it specifies inflammation of the serosal (lining) surfaces within the coelom, coelomitis has been the accepted term in veterinary pathology for simplicity and has been used historically for many years, making it familiar to clinicians and pathologists and providing consistency in diagnosis and communication. In the context of veterinary pathology, the term is understood to mean inflammation of the serosal linings without needing the more specific term. This is supported by the recognition and use of coelomitis by experts in reference texts in the zoo and wildlife pathology field since ~2000, including the seminal textbook Pathology of Zoo and Wildlife Species, 11 many other well-established reference books,2–4,7–12 and peer-reviewed papers in highly regarded veterinary journals.5,6,13 This acknowledgment in authoritative texts underscores its relevance and acceptance in describing celomic cavity inflammation in certain species.
I would therefore urge you to reconsider your views on this terminology and, instead, aid the correct usage across current literature, for example by arguing against the use of peritonitis in birds and other species without a diaphragm given that, by definition, they do not have a peritoneum as found in mammals.
Thank you for considering this perspective. I look forward to further discussion on this topic.
Sincerely,
