User talk:Fyslee/Sandbox Spinal disc herniation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Editorial comments

Wow, this is harder than I thought! I've been sitting here with writers block or a brain cramp for 20 minutes:)

There has always been some overlap and confusion of terms that everybody uses for describing the different stages of disc injury. This is the way I currently use the terms:

  • Spinal disc herniation is a term used to describe an abnormal condition of the soft cartilagenous pad, or intervertebral disc(IVD) that seperate two adjacent vertebra. This disc is comprised of tough fibrous bands (collectivley called the annulus fibrosis) wrapped around a gelatinous central core (called the nucleus pulposus). Normally, the annulus fibrosis surrounds and stabilizes the nucleus during weight bearing and compressive forces. Occasionally, as a result of prolonged repetitive forward and twisting type motion, a one time significant trauma, or otherwise deconditioned status, the nucleus pulposus works it's way through the fibers of the annulus fibrosis in a posterolateral(backward and to the side) direction along the weakest portion of the disc. As the nucleus approaches the outer fibers, the annulus begins to bulge or protrude. At this point it may protrude into the spinal canal where it may behave as a space occupying lesion(SOL) and place pressure on a spinal nerve or, more rarely, the entire spinal cord. A disc prolapse(rupture) is when the nucleus pulposus extrudes completely through the annular fibers into the spinal canal.

Other types of SOLs include tumors, vascular anomalies, scar tissue, fatty deposits, etc.

Okay, I'll stop there for your input and/or feedback. That was work! --Dematt 02:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking good. What you write is true and can be included in one way or another. I would suggest that we start, not by writing our own stuff, but by first consolidating all information from the two existing articles, deleting duplicate stuff, and then editing that to make it apply to all disc herniations, and fill in the missing blanks for various parts of the spine, such as that there are no discs in the upper cervical area. But go ahead and place your lead there for now, then we can make a synthesis of the existing leads, as well as yours, and mine. -- Fyslee 04:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I guess we need to consolidate them first, then do the redirect so as to not alienate the other authors. Then we can add our edits. I was getting too excited(premature editation:). I'll get a chance to do some more this evening. --Dematt 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I have consolidated ALL the material from both articles, and added a few things. The whole thing now needs to be gone through to eliminate duplication, make the article general in the beginning, and specific in the individual sections, which can be developed. Then we need to step back and look at it as a whole and see if we've missed something important. When we're ready to do so, we can launch it (IOW, throw it to the lions!). -- Fyslee 21:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I used the strikethrough to eliminate things I don't think we want. I'll let you decide if we want to re-word it or trash it somewhere. --Dematt 22:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This is looking good! Do you ever sleep? I definitely like all your choices so far. Keep going! I'm not thrilled with the section on ??levels?? either, so scrap those. Your lead is more concise, and most of the points in mine are covered in the body. We can use some of the information elsewhere after we are finished consolidating. Much, much better! I like the way you handled the "slipped disc" especially. --Dematt 13:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Take a look and finish this off. We're nearing completion, at least enough to release it for editing by other editors. The lead needs to be synthesized and the rest checked out for inaccuracies or oversights. I work on this in the late evening, so I'm a bit blurry while doing it! -- Fyslee 21:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll check it out now. --Dematt 00:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC) That was a lot easier since you did most of the work:) I do notice that we don't have a diagnosis section, so I'll try something for that. I noticed one of the links mentioned some stuff from a neurosurgeons web site. Let's not mention any particular type of doctor so we don't open that bag of worms:) --Dematt 02:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC) I think we're ready! --Dematt 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good edits and additions. No diagnosis? Good catch! I've done some copy edits, style changes, Wikilinks, and made a clumsy attempt to mention the weaknesses of X-ray, yet why it's still used. That needs work with fresh eyes! I've also reworded some of the copyrighted material so the link can be removed. -- Fyslee 05:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We need a good image, preferably a series showing progression. -- Fyslee 06:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The xray part looks perfect to me. It is definitely accurate. I'll take another look at the first sentnece, but otherwise I like it as is. I was looking at images last night. I'm not sure about copyright coming from web sites, but I might be able to "create" some original work if I can't find anything that allows us to use it. I'll get it, but you get to place it.. you know I have no eye for beauty:) I think we have done well! --Dematt 12:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually you've done an excellent job with images on the chiro article. It should look good, and the images have really spruced it up. -- Fyslee 14:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Launch time?

Are we ready to launch this article, IOW cast it to the wolves?

There are a few things we need to do first:

  1. be certain of the title,
  2. add an image
  3. launch the article (we can create the new page by making a red link here)
  4. introduce it on its own new talk page, including the reasons why we created it
  5. start creating appropriate links to it in existing articles.
  6. nominate the Slipped disc and Lumbar disc herniation articles for deletion, only leaving redirects.
  7. find links to those two articles and revise the links
  8. other tasks?

-- Fyslee 19:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

ADD THE IMAGE!!!! I was working on that when I got sidetracked by KV:) Ok, I'll work on that tonight!!! I was wondering why you hadn't started it yet:) --Dematt 20:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting there! I've been looking and working on the image all night. There are some images out there but the copyright thing is aways a concern. I'm trying to make something up, but it is taking longer than I thought. I better get to bed, so I'll get back to it in the morning. Hang in there! --Dematt 03:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Are we ready for step two? -- Dematt 14:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Are we certain of the title? We have the option of a popular title, a scientifically precise one, or whatever is most commonly used. -- Fyslee 15:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Lets go with the scientific precise one, then redirect the commonly used and popular ones. --Dematt 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense. So, is what we're using now good enough? -- Fyslee 16:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep! --Dematt 17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] An unrelated sidenote

Take a look at this [1] and leave any comments on the talk page there. It's something I wrote and compiled some time ago. -- Fyslee 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frequency

Hey, when you took out the "by regional", it occurred to me that maybe we should mention some stats about "frequency" of disc herniations (if we can find some numbers). You know what I mean - like "X% of of back pain sufferers are the result of herniated discs". Then under the treatment section we should probably note that "X% of disc herniations require surgery." Or "X% of disc herniations patients never recover." (Ha! - just kidding) Whacha think? Do you have any stats? (I'm still working on the image:) --Dematt 11:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. We could launch the article as is and then work on it then. I'm afraid if we don't get this launched soon, the existing articles may get edited too much, and thus other editors will get their feelings hurt if we suddenly delete "their" articles. -- Fyslee 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - I'm adding the image (hope it's okay)! 3 , 2 , 1 , Blastoff! --Dematt 21:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, Oh, another premature blastoff:) trouble with picture! Abort! Abort! --Dematt 21:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Just plug away. I'm going to bed (it's late here). Right now a dispute with Levine2112. He's been ..... for a long time, and I've got the proof. Now let's see if he takes the bait. So far so good. He's quite d.sh.n.st. I'll have to deal with him later. -- Fyslee 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay - the picture is in - I'll let yu put it where you want it. -- Dematt
I tried a bit of formatting. Hope that looks better. Now off to bed! -- Fyslee 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Perfect! (I put it together from other parts that were public domain) Get some sleep. I'm taking the family to a movie. --Dematt 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cauda Equina syndrome

It was my understanding that cauda equina syndrome is the result of pressure from a SOL such as a disc (though anything could occupy the space) at the lumbar region of the spinal cord that actually lays at the level of the thoracolumbar region. IOW, there is no spinal cord below L1 (only spinal nerves and therefore those are only lower motor neuron fibers). I know this isn't that important for the article, but as professionals in the field, it is probably something you and I should be pretty sure about;) Do you have a source that says otherwise, cause it is something I want to know for sure. Thanks. --Dematt 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it didn't take me long to find it! Sure enough, Conus Medularus Syndrome describes what I was thinking while Cauda Equina Syndrome is all lower motor neurons. Both have bowel and bladder dysfunction, while Conus Medularus Syndrome will show upper motor neuron findings as well. Learn something everyday! --Dematt 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Me too. Conus Medularis Syndrome isn't exactly something I stumble over every day! -- Fyslee 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Launching

Let's launch it. New article:

Now to move the content and introduce the new site with comments on the Talk page. -- Fyslee 20:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Take a look at the introduction and feel free to revise it: new talk page.
Looks great! WHat do I do?:) --Dematt 21:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There are still a few things we need to do:
  1. be certain of the title, DONE
  2. add an image DONE
  3. launch the article (we can create the new page by making a red link here) DONE
  4. introduce it on its own new talk page, including the reasons why we created it DONE
  5. start creating appropriate links to it in existing articles.
  6. nominate the Slipped disc and Lumbar disc herniation articles for deletion, only leaving redirects.
  7. find links to those two articles and revise the links
  8. other tasks?
-- Fyslee 21:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


These need to be relinked and redirected:
Hey, I went to here by going to slipped disc and clicking on "what links here" and got this list. Is this something we can use. I'm not sure if I should be changing these. I surely don't feel comfortable doing a redirect without seeing how you did it. I could crash the whole system:) --Dematt 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay - I did all of the slipped disk ones here. I found some that you had already done and some that probably were not necessary, but I figured I'd error on the side of inclusion. I'll take a break from it tonight and wait to get some feedback from you that I did the right things. This makes your eyes burn! --Dematt 03:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Are we THERE YET? :)--Dematt 15:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
YES! So far so good. All instances of "slipped disc" are now corrected, the articles are blanked, including their talk pages, and redirects are in place and functioning. The only thing left is the edit histories, and I don't know how to do that. It looks like our project is a success, since no one has objected, and we've even gotten a couple positive comments. CONGRATULATIONS! It's been a pleasure working together with you, as it usually is. Now if we could only share a bottle of champagne.....;-) I think we can now continue any work and comments on the new site, unless it concerns our private work here. -- Fyslee 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It was good working with you when we didn't have to worry about getting slammed from the outside! Thanks for letting me in on it. I know you could have done it yourself, but you let me play, too;) Thanks for sharing! --Dematt 19:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)