Rhabdomyoma

RHABDOMYOMA, rhabdomyoma (from Greek rhabdos-rod and myoma), myoma striocellulare, a tumor of striated muscle tissue. It represents either a tumor that arises from voluntary muscle tissue in the process of regeneration, for example, on the tongue and in other places, so-called myoblastoma (Abricosov, 1925) (see Muscles), or congenital tumors of the choristoma and hamartoma type. Tumors of the first kind are extremely rare. Tumors of the latter kind more often occur as mixed teratoid formations and in the vast majority of cases have no connection whatsoever with striated muscle tissue. The most typical localization for them is the genitourinary system (kidneys, testicles, uterus) and heart. Cases of such tumors have also been described in the pineal gland, in the brain (Abricosov), and in other places. Striated fibers usually do not constitute the entire mass of the tumor in R., but are embedded as individual fibers or bundles among other tissues - connective, fatty, epithelial. The latter often has an adenomatous appearance in these cases (adenorhabdomyomas, cystorhabdomyomas). The muscle fibers themselves in R. differ from ordinary striated muscles and appear either as very thin fibers with barely noticeable transverse striations, with a large number of nuclei located in the center of the fibers, or as spindle-shaped cells with barely expressed transverse striations, or consist of round and oval cells similar to myoblasts. The cells of cardiac R. have a plate-like shape, are vacuolated, with transverse striations along the edges of the cell body and between the vacuoles. These cells are similar to the Purkinje cells of the heart (Abricosov). Often in the cells of R. a large amount of glycogen can be found. The origin of R. is explained by disturbances in the embryonic period, and as for tumors in the kidneys, the development of muscle and glandular formations in them may proceed due to a halt in development and displacement of mesodermal elements of this area, which subsequently differentiate into connective tissue, striated muscle, and glandular tubules (of the primitive kidney). R. are usually benign tumors, but in some cases they can not only clinically but also anatomically take on a malignant course (rhabdomyosarcomas, myoblastosarcomas). Cases of such tumors growing into veins, metastases to lymph glands, liver, and muscles have been described. See also Muscles, Myoma, and Kestner. RABLE, Francois (Francois Rabelais, 1488-1553), physician, humanist, famous writer of the Renaissance era. Born into a petty-bourgeois family in Touraine. Studied in a monastic school in Bonne, where he took monastic vows and in 1520 received the rank of priest. Studied at the medical faculty in Montpellier. In 1530 he received the degree of bachelor. During his stay in Montpellier he not only studied but also gave lectures that drew a large audience. After graduating from the university he engaged in publishing activities in Lyon and published, among other things, the aphorisms of Hippocrates and Ars parva of Galen. Then, as the personal physician of Cardinal Du Bellay, he visited Rome twice, living there for about a year, after which he was a physician at the Lyon hospital. One of the poets of the time, Dole, characterized him as follows: 'Rabelais, the pride of medicine, a physician who can bring the dead from the doors of the grave and return them to the light.' In 1546 he took the position of physician at the city hospital in Metz. In the last years of his life he was the abbot of Meudon. R. became famous as the author of the novel 'Gargantua and Pantagruel,' which is one of the greatest monuments of world literature, in which he in a sharp satirical form ridiculed the morals of his time. Officially belonging to the clergy, R. preserved throughout his life the spirit of free thought, characteristic in that era of the best minds, for which he was repeatedly persecuted by the clergy. WORK. The term 'work' is used in physics, physiology, and political economy, and as Engels points out, 'this category is transferred by the mechanical theory of heat from political economy to physics' and 'in its physiological aspect it is still far from being scientifically defined.' Modern physics, not having accepted the foundations of dialectical materialism, either does not define W. in essence, limiting itself to a purely formal descriptive-quantitative definition, which reduces only to indicating the method of its measurement (W = force multiplied by the distance traveled by the body under the action of this force in its direction - definition given first by Poncelet in 1826), or defines it through force, that is, again in essence does not define it at all ('force does work when its point of application moves' - Khvolson; Tsimiryazev defines it in the same way in essence), or gives it a sufficiently general definition, which however relates the concept of W. exclusively to the sphere of elementary physical phenomena and mechanics (W is the overcoming of resistance). Engels 50 years ago in his notes (published only recently under the general title 'Dialectics of Nature') gave the only scientific definition of W.: 'Work is the change of form of motion, considered from its quantitative side,' that is, the measure of motion, taking into account its qualitative side as well, for as Engels points out there, criticizing the simplified mechanistic views of Helmholtz, 'it is precisely the quantitative constancy of the magnitude of W. that hides from him the fact that the basic condition of any physical work is quantitative change, change of form.' Therefore, the concept of W. should be extended, as Engels does, to all types of energy transformation, and it is quite legitimate to apply it also to physiological phenomena, which ordinary (classical) physics does not do when speaking about the W. of individual organs (kidneys, liver, etc.), systems (muscular W., work of the cardiovascular system, central nervous system, etc.) and of the organism as a whole. In physics work is measured by the product of force (or more correctly - expended energy) by the distance traveled by the body under the influence of this force, and by the cosine of the angle between the directions of force and movement. Units of measurement of W. are either the kilogram-meter or (in the CGS system) the erg, equal to the W. of a force of 1 dyne over a distance of 1 cm. The quantities megaerg = 10⁶ ergs and joule = 10 megaergs are also often used (1 joule = 0.102 kg; 1 kg/m = 9.81 × 10⁷ ergs). W. per unit of time is called power. The unit of power in the CGS system is the watt or W. of 1 joule in 1 second. In technology the horsepower (P.S.) or W. equal to 75 kg/m in 1 sec. (736 watts) is often used as a unit of power. It goes without saying that these units are suitable only for mechanical W., and in all other cases it is necessary to use corresponding specific measuring instruments. The mechanistic reduction of these types of W. to other simpler ones and the use without any corrections or qualifications of the same units of measurement is methodologically completely inadmissible, leading to gross errors of a practical and theoretical order. In particular, a manifestation of crude mechanism is the reduction of physiological-muscular work to only its energy equivalent in the thermodynamic sense. Engels first pointed this out, exposing the incorrect positions of the physiologists Fick and Wislicenus. Modern labor physiology especially often violates this principle, considering man as a steam engine and expressing all the W. of the organism in calories on the basis of the study of oxygen exchange processes (Amar, Adler, Kagan and others). In this case, the qualitative specificity of biological processes, the paramount role of the nervous and endocrine systems, the unity of the entire organism, which does not give the right to reduce the complex processes occurring in it to a simple sum of physiological phenomena in individual organs, etc., are not taken into account. This question was thoroughly illuminated and analyzed at a conference on labor energy convened by the Institute of Labor Protection in 1931, and in the resolution on the reports of S. Kaplun and B. Kemerovsky, which gave a methodological critique of the basic mechanistic errors of labor physiology. The muscular W. of man can be: a) static, when there is no movement of parts of the body, i.e., mechanical W. in the narrow sense of the word, but when a significant amount of energy is expended on holding the muscles in a certain position of the body, and this W. is the most tiring, b) dynamically positive, when the force of gravity is overcome, and c) dynamically negative, when movement is produced in the direction of gravity, and again no proper mechanical W. is produced, but energy is expended to maintain a certain tempo of lowering objects, without which they would fall. The total amount of W. produced in advanced processes or in experimental laboratory conditions is determined either by determining the external energy equivalent by direct mechanical measurement of its results (e.g., lifting weights, driving piles, etc.), or by a more complex method of cyclographic filming and corresponding biomechanical calculations, or by determining the additional energy expended by the organism (by the method of calorimetric chambers or by determining additional oxygen absorption by analyzing the composition of exhaled air in various types of eudiometers).

Sometimes an absolutely unacceptable identification of R. with labor is made. Labor is a social category that applies only to humans, and although labor always produces a certain amount of R., to identify these two terms is completely unacceptable, all the more so because R. in humans occurs with all other kinds of activities besides labor, and one can even speak of the physiological work of the body in a state of so-called rest. Reducing labor to work leads modern labor physiology to the most serious errors. A number of labor physiologists in the USSR (Efimov, Podgaetsky and others) raised the question of the need to standardize labor on the basis of a physiological approach, and primarily on the basis of the physiological definition of the amount of R. Meanwhile, Engels had already written: 'Let them try to express any skilled labor in kilogram-meters and attempt to determine the wage on this basis! In the end, nothing but nonsense would result.' The demand to consider labor standardization physiological would inevitably lead to a weakening of technical standardization and a reduction in output norms, to a decrease in productivity. Labor standardization should be the business of labor specialists, while physiology should only participate in it to a certain extent, resolving individual special questions that require physiological competence—primarily in tedious, heavy, and harmful work processes. The identification of R. with labor is also the basis of the well-known mechanistic principle of 'optimimum' by Ermanovsky, who believed that the only criterion for labor rationalization should be the reduction of energy expenditure per unit of time. On the Menshevik positions of Ermanovsky, who objectively resisted increasing labor productivity and saw no difference between capitalist and socialist rationalization, V. I. Lenin also pointed out.