Talk:Maggot therapy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
- THAT PICTURE REALLY NEEDS TO BE TONED DOWN/TAKEN OFF. FAR TOO GRAPHIC FOR CASUAL READERS.**
"In the 20th century soldiers who were injured and not fit to go to the battlefield and left for several days having sustained compound fractures of the femur and large flesh wounds of the abdomen and scrotum. When they arrive at the hospital they had no signs of fever despite how serious their injuries and their prolonged exposure to the elements without food or water. When their clothes were removed `thousands and thousands of maggots that filled the entire wounded area' were found. To Baer's surprise, when these were removed `there was practically no bare bone to be seen and the internal structure of the wounded bone as well as the surrounding parts was entirely covered with most beautiful pink tissue that one could imagine'. This at a time when the death rate for compound fractures of the femur was about 75-80%."
Why is this poorly written, anecdotical note about wounded soldiers at the top of this article ? It should be at the bottom and cleaned up a bit. Moreover the source of this probably quoted material should be added.
I have tagged the article Maggot therapy for merger into this article, for the simple reason that we do not need Duplicated Articles on Wikipedia. One is sufficient, how we wound up with 2 is a mystery. You are welcome to discuss this proposal below. Thor Malmjursson 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's pet yack
The maggots used are those which eat dead flesh but not living human flesh (blowflies, usually the greenbottle Lucilia sericata, which is sometimes called Phaenicia sericata). Some maggots, such as the screw worm Cochliomyia hominivorax, cannot be used because they eat live flesh.
Can we just get rid of the article that's more amalgamated while preserving the above information, (beneficial and harmful species identification) in this article? Salva 19:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I personally think what we should do is get together, look at the 2 articles, see what information is most usable out of both, and merge that information in to form a single article of the one topic. Information that you identified, like above, would be preserved. Thor Malmjursson 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's pet yack
Concede to the current revision? If so, then I'd like to know how to program Wikipedia to redirect from Maggot (t)herapy to Maggot (T)herapy. This is the first random task edit that I've performed. Thanks for your patience! Salva 23:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Its simple, Salva3. Once the 2 articles are merged together, and we create the new single article, Maggot Therapy, we use the old page, Maggot (t)herapy, as the redirect. The text on the page is removed, and in its place, you simply put # REDIRECT followed by the name of the article you wish to redirect to, in normal wiki format, enclosed in [ and ] brackets. Its pretty straightforward. Thor Malmjursson 02:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's pet yack
Don't merge!, each type of necrotic wound has its own history and cultural significance which I believe will be lost in a merged page. Seriously though, why is there even a discussion? Merge it already. Maggot therapy has the proper capitalization, more history, and more links (5-0), so I'd probably merge into it. Maggot Therapy is the oldest (but by only a couple of weeks). Ewlyahoocom 19:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Plagarism
If you check the sources, some content seems to be copied directly off the websites provided.
[edit] Redundant historical information
The following historical information was out of place in the article and should be merged with the existing historical sections.
In the early days of medicine, maggot infestations of wounds (myiasis) were inevitable, due to flies laying eggs in the wounds. Maggot-infested wounds tended to be less life-threatening than other wounds, so until antibiotics were developed it was common practice to leave the maggots. After antibiotics came into use, the presence of maggots became viewed as unhygienic. In recent years, however, use of specially sanitized maggots has developed as a treatment for various types of wounds such as leg ulcers and pressure sores, gangrene and other bacterial infestations, since the maggot will only eat the dead rotting infected flesh and leave the living flesh intact. It is especially useful for people with weakened immune systems or blood flow that become infected in the extremities, such as diabetics, and is particularly effective in treating diabetic foot problems. It has also been shown that presence of maggots deters gas gangrene from starting in a wound.
It may be that this ability of some maggots to disinfect and clean wounds originated in the wild when flies laid eggs in the wounds of live animals. It was beneficial for the maggots if the host animal was kept healthy and able to keep up with its herd, and not lag behind where a predator such as a lion or wolf would single it out and eat it before the maggots could finish their larval development and drop out of the wound and pupate. Also, preventing the wound from emitting a smell would stop wolves from tracking the injured animal by the smell from the wound.
According to a documentary on the History Channel, in 1822 an American mountain man, Hugh Glass — had been gravely injured by a grizzly bear attack and left alone in the wilderness to die — rolled himself onto a rotting log and had the maggots clean an infected wound on his back.
William Baer of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland was the first surgeon to actively promote maggot therapy in 1931.
MDT was successfully and routinely administered by thousands of medical physicians until the mid-1940s, when its use declined after new antibiotics and surgical techniques were developed in World War II.
Maggot therapy was occasionally used during the 1970s and 1980s, when antibiotics, surgery, and other modalities of modern antibiotics and surgical techniques failed.
As recently as 1989, military physicians at the Long Beach Veterans Affairs Medical Center in California collaborated with the University of California to further research MDT and the early conclusions are that MDT is an effective method to treat patients who would otherwise be subjected to amputations of limbs. MDT may even be preferable to modern surgical and antibiotic treatment in some cases.
More recently the use of Maggot Therapy for treating diabetic foot ulcers unresponsive to conventional therapy concluded that it was more effective and efficient in debriding non healing foot and leg ulcers in male diabetic veterans than was continued conventional care .
Akersmc 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anachronism
The item about Napoleon's chief surgeon gives 1829 as the date of his observation of the beneficial effects of maggots. This is obviously wrong, as Napoleon died in 1821 and spent the last years of his life in exile.
I am unsure of this. The item states it is Napoleon's surgon, however it does not say the surgon was in the service of Napoleon at the time of the comment. With Napoleon's popularity then (and now) he may have used that title even after Napoleons exile. My US$0.02...more research may be needed.
Napoleon doesn't only refer to Napoleon Bonaparte...
Practically speaking, unless there is further specification (e.g., Napoleon III, Napoleon Kaufman), yes it does.
[edit] General Improvements
This article should avoid using any pictures, without at least issuing some sort of warning first, due to the graphic and rather disturbing nature that is common in such images. I would suggest linking to images of maggot therapy, while offering a warning beforehand.
Agreed. Since this complaint has been here for some time, and it's a rather obvious complaint, and indeed adding the image seems more like an act of vandalism than an actual improvement to the article, I removed the image. If someone wants to put it back, they can do it themselves with a link and an appropriate warning.
- I certainly understand your issue with using the disturbing picture, but I do feel that the picture could improve the article. I once tried to create a subpage for images of chronic wounds, but that was deleted. Does anyone know a way to create a link to an image that's not on the page itself? Anyone have any suggestions for how to display this image tastefully and in a way that viewing is optional? delldot | talk 19:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. The picture is no different than the image one would get from reading the article. Honestly, by all means there should be media with anything medical. Darkahn 05:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
