Talk:Hydrocephalus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Neurology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neurology. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Donations

Should there be a listing of places for donations in this article in an encyclopedia? --Alex.tan 04:00, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, there shouldn't. Deleted. Vicki Rosenzweig 04:03, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment vs. "Cure"

While the article mentioned treatment of hydrocephalus per se, it has been thought in the past that treatment=cure. It doesn't, of course. It was thought that after my series of shunt "revisions" in the late 1960's that I was a "normal" person and had no excuse for having problems. It was believed that any problems would go away following a revision. Please understand that this is not the case with a great number of people with hydrocephalus. For myself, I will always have trouble with memory and concentration. A neurosurgeon admitted that nothing can be done for my limited peripheral vision - not even eyeglasses or surgery. In a "time is money" world it is difficult for me to hold a real paying job. My memory capacity is too poor to survive in college or university. I had to struggle considerably to escape high school (it was "expected" of me). Some with hydrocephalus have a harder time than I do. Some will have an easier time that I can only dream of. We're not all alike. But please, don't confuse being "treated" as being "cured". Some people do that and it's very discouraging.

Ûgly (at-sign) frîgΗτεÑŠΤÊÌΝ (dot) ÇΘΜ

[edit] Agreed

I would whole-heartedly agree with the statement above, I've had a great many revisions, 42 at the last count, I have however managed to gain an honours degree, but of course, at the final hurdle forgotten a great many details and gained a lower grade than expected. The thing I would like to point out is this, I, like many people with hydrocephalus or indeed any other "unseen" but yet serious disabling conditions, have suffered from ignorance or mistust because of a great many aspects of my condition, particularly memory function, in time I like many other people with these conditions have wondered why, although I continue to be treated in hospital for an incredibly serious condition why I am in some way seen as different and less tolerated than those of more obvious ailments, unfortunatly thus is life, and such the human condition.

Daz darren (at-sign) hotmail (dot) com

[edit] Jargon

As a layman (albeit an erudite one), this article wasn't the easiest to understand. For one thing, whoever wrote it didn't seem to think that it was important to very quickly state the symptoms of this disease, which he or she or they only slipped into "Clinical Presentation." For this very reason, I think that the symptoms should have their own section, split away from "Clinical Presentation." Otherwise, this article is only good for medical-school students. Perhaps I am the first non-medical-school enrollee to have read this article; I only looked it up because I had read that author Roald Dahl's son had it, and I wanted to know exactly what this disease was. Consider making this article more "accessible" to laymen. I understand "intercranial pressure" and all that, but people will want somewhat simpler terms and will want to know sooner in the article what the symptoms are.66.214.230.155 19:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but not everyone agrees with me. JFW | T@lk 13:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree; I came to this page specifically to make a comment in line with the above. I came here looking for information and had to struggle through lots of very dense text to figure out which parts contained the info I wanted to know.
I don't mind so much if articles on more esoteric, theoretical subjects, such as my own avocation, linguistics, go a little heavier into the jargon; if you find yourself wanting to know about agglutinative languages, you've dug your own grave. But health topics, it seems to me, need to be more accessible to a wider audience, because they are very relevant to family, friends, etc., of the afflicted. --Rschmertz 03:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I found this really pretty interesting picture of a full skeleton of a hydrocephalic man from the early 20th century (at Image:Hydrocephalic_skeleton.jpg), but I hesitate to add it to the article because the skeleton itself looks somewhat odd (the torso, in particular, seems highly distorted). I'm worried that it wouldn't be representative, but I admittedly know next to nothing about the illness. Does anyone else think it has value in the article? --Fastfission 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not 100% clear, but I get the focal point. Trust me, I used to have hydrocephalus when I was a baby.TimHowardII 09:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A more representative picture might be a CT scan or MRI of a brain affected with hydrocephalus, in my opinion. That way it's not just associated with 'large head=hydrocephalus'. Of course, no one brain scan is representative of hydrocephalus, any more than one skull is.Kiwispam84 (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From the Greek

As someone with hydrocephalus, I was always told that the term was from the Greek for water on the brain, as opposed to the article's phrasing, "water head". Am I just the recepient of a sloppy translation, or is the article's version poorly done? -Fsotrain09 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you were told wrong. Where did the person who misinformed you get the preposition on and the word the? hydro = water, cephalon = brain/head. --Storkk 12:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roughly translated

Yes, it does mean "Water Head", or rather "Water Brain", bare in mind the greek knowledge of the skull head and the brain were all mixed up into one, but effectivly yeah, Hydro-water Cephalus-Head/brain

I understand the whole lack of a Greek distinction there, but I'm just wondering about how the translation is phrased. Is there a reference for the "water head" interpretation? -Fsotrain09 22:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check this out

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm --Ifrit 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


I've worked with a couple of greek people in the past, generally it's pronounced "hyd-Lo-Seph-Alee" oviously not spelt like that but from a spoken point thats how it's pronouced by greek speakers anyway

--h0ckeyd 13:01, 11 June 2006 (BST)

[edit] inappropriate tone tag

I added a tag, reflecting that I think this article is very informally written. I changed one "hasn't" to "has not", but there are less tangible points that also hurt its formality. --Storkk 12:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the tone of this article is a bit odd, as well. In my opinion, it's on the pessimistic side, and could use many more details.Kiwispam84 (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sentence

  • The U.S. government spends less than $1 per person with hydrocephalus per year for research, while more than $300 is spent per person with juvenile diabetes per year.

This comparison needs to be rewritten so it doesn't sound like a sales pitch. In addition, it's uncited. If ppl think that there is something unfair going on and research is underfunded, quote someone who says this. It would go better than the above statement and would avoid pov-ish language. --DanielCD 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Edits

I noticed a few things reading through this article tonight. I'd have started work on it myself, but I'm too tired. I was diagnosed with hydrocephalus when I was ten months old, so hah, 25 years ago.

  1. one The article states that shunts have remained unchanged since their creation in 1960. This is obviously false, even if minor modifications are ignored. There are now shunts with programmable valves so that the CSF pressure can be controlled nonsurgically.
  2. two This may be a question of semantics, but I consider the ETV surgery a 'cure' for hydrocephalus. One is no longer shunt dependent anyway. Crazyniece 07:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

ETV isnt a cure, really it's not, for a start, because I have slit ventricles, ETV is out of the question and also, I've met many people who hvae had ETV done and still require re-shunting....so no, there is no "solid" cure...also, I have had several "programmable" shunts, and most have failed more miserably thant the non-programmable ones. H0ckeyd 17:05, 11 January (UTC)

Wow, I had it as a complication from a botched operation earlier due to a blood clot when I was a baby 21 years ago. I have minor hearing loss, my right hand is very weak in terms of precision hand control (so I'm left-handed, but I could be genetically left-handed from my uncle, so I'm never sure of that). But the shunt worked well, though it was nothing but a tube and a pump. The thing is useless when I was 6, and after I'm done with physio for my right hand, I had a checkup and said I am cured. The apparatus stays within me, and it is still a little uncomfortable when I need to turn my head or when I have a scarf around my neck, but for the most part, it's not a problem.TimHowardII 09:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Crazyniece, I agree with your #1 point 100%!Kiwispam84 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

The history section needs considerable expansion. Unfortunately, I've filed away somewhere all the research I did in college, but while I try to find it, somebody else jump right in ... there is quite a history of attempted cures and treatments before the invention of the shunt, and it goes to show how desperate people were to find a solution. Also, I remember finding confirmation that the first shunt(s) for hydrocephalus were designed (developed? sketched?) by a hydraulics engineer whose son had the condition, which would be another worthwhile addition. Lawikitejana 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (sister of a person with hydrocephalus b. 1958 - feel free to say "hi" on my Talk page)

Along the same lines, it might be worth noting that author Roald Dahl had a son with hydrocephalus, and helped develop shunt technology. Kiwispam84 (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Internal/external vs communicating/non-communicating

I'm not sure that the dual use of classification systems is helpful, particularly the description of internal and external hydrocephalus. As far as I'm aware these terms are not in common clinical usage (unless they are peculiar to the US, perhaps?) and technically speaking are not accurate. Communicating and non-communicating/obstructive hydrocephalus are commoner clinical terms and are anatomically more correct. I'd suggest eliminating the use of the terms internal and external, except perhaps in an "also known as" aside?

Mcanty 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrocephalus and alien skulls

I had originally deleted the sentence mentioned, as seen in recent history, as it was grammatically a bit confusing; I didn't think the point it made belonged it a medico-surgical encyclopedia article; and it is factually incorrect as the brain itself gets smaller, compressed by the CSF; it is also very unusual for the skull to enlarge (except in hydrocephalic infants prior to fontanelle closure and skull suture fusion.) As such, I think it should be removed - any consensus?

Mcanty 17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The material in question is: "In a hydrocephalic situation, the fluid accumulates in the ventricles, and the brain and skull may become enlarged because of the great volume of fluid pressing against them,a situation that some people misunderstood or scam others as announcing a hidrocephalic skull as being an alien skull."
The bolded, italicized part should remain in the article, I think. It preceded Tiago's edit. As for the remaining material, perhaps it could be replaced by something like this: "Hydrocephalic skulls have a somewhat alien appearance." I'll leave it up to you, Mcanty.Ferrylodge 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I've edited the article accordingly. Feel free to change it.Ferrylodge 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erased

Someone has erased the article on Hydrocephalus and left the information that was at the top right of the page. Please send this letter on and on to people, so Wikipedia can ban the people who were erasing the articles.