Talk:Lymphatic system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a candidate for the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. Please visit that page to support or comment on the nomination.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lymphatic system article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Picture

This article would be much better with a picture of the lymphatic system. Mikebar (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you User:Ashcraft for the picture! Mikebar (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

When was the lymphatic system discovered. Had its existance been known about within Chinese medicine for many centuries before its "discovery" by Western medicine?

>No, Chinese Medicine has no concept of a LS...not literally, anatomically or physiologically.75.80.76.56 02:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Can someone plz mention that the lymphatic system and the immune system aren't the same. I would have done it myself but I am noob here. and keep up the good work62.150.221.230 11:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)evox777

This phrase: "Lymph movement occurs slowly with low pressure due to peristalsis..." Is unclear because it doesn't refer to any anatomical structure. Peristalsis of what? The digestive tract? That's probably what he meant but it reads like he means peristalsis within the lymphatic vessels which, AFAIK, does not happen.75.80.76.56 02:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chyle

Wouldn't the vitamins and glucose be mixed in with the fat? Don't these substances pass freely everwhere in the body, discounting the blood brain barriers?

It depends on the vitamin. Some vitamins are fat-soluble, some aren't.75.80.76.56 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


The small intestine is richly supplied with lymphatics.  How could the body keep all the nutrients in the small intestine out of the lymph system?  It doesn't seem possible.--McDogm 17:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

>First, it would be neither possible nor necessary to keep all the nutrients in the small intestine. Second, there are many types of 'nutrients' to pass thru the intestinal wall, just as there many waste products and non-nutrients that shouldn't pass thru the intestinal wall.....how the process works in either depends on the substance in question. Third, realize that lymph (and everything in it that is not consumed by a cell) shortly makes its way back into general (blood) circulation anyway....it's not as if once in the LS, it's no longer available to cells. To the contrary.75.80.76.56 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The lymphatic system is perfectly coexistent with the circulatory system. How does the body select for transmission of minerals and vitamins to the portal circulatory system over the lymphatic system in the tissues of the small intestines?--McDogm 12:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

>The body doesn't select. The process depends on the specific nutrient in question.75.80.76.56 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does the portal venous system exist if the lymphatics take all the nutrients from the gut? Why don't the intestines have veins that drain to the vena cava instead of to the liver? Sure, some stuff ends up in the chyle but definitely not everything and certainly not most. Most of the fats end up in the lymph but not the rest. They go straight to the liver. This I remember quite strongly from my physiology lectures. A quick Googling gives [1], [2] and, significantly, Lipid absorption. Note that they say that only lipids get absorbed straight to the lymph and everything else goes to the portal venous system. Alex.tan 01:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

>The liver is a primary site of chemical synthesis and filtration for the whole body. It makes sense for blood and nutrients to go straight from the gut to the liver for 'processing', if you will. Toxins and wastes can also be absorbed by the veins that drain the intestines, another reason to shunt that blood directly to the liver instead of into general circulation where it could do harm.75.80.76.56 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manipulative therapy

Reverted edit on manipulative therapy as there is no evidence that lymph flowing can be felt ... text deleted here:

Some physical therapists or other practitioners of manipulative therapy can perform a "lymphatic release" by massaging areas of the body where lymph is found to be flowing irregularly. Such releases are intended to unblock poorly circulating lymph, though poor circulation is often indicative of systemic bodily malaise not soluble through massage alone. (It is interesting to note that lymph circulation can be felt in much the same way that one feels air entering and exiting the lungs, though lymph usually cycles at a slower rate—a few times per minute—and is at first often hard for people to detect in themselves without some guidance.)

Alex.tan 14:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Awwww... :(   Very quick on the draw there buddy. No evidence? Did you look? The comment in question sure could have been better placed in the article, but you don't think there should be some discussion of manual lymph drainage? I'm not a physician, but the great volume of work being done in this area warrants at least a note and then expansion. Separating the comment on feeling lymph from treating lymphedema with massage, I think there's no problem mentioning the latter.
  • For highly commercialized, somewhat suspect material on this, see the IAHE.
  • For evidence of support for the idea of "manual lymph drainage" within the community of lymphologists, see the International Society of Lymphology (Section IV.A.1., Non-Operative Treatment) or a list of references at the British Lymphology Society.
  • Layperson-friendly books (legit or not) on the topic: 1, 2, ...
  • There are even schools based on this stuff: 1...
Again, I'm not a physician, I don't have the background to scope out the legitimacy of these things quickly, but if there were a cult of doctors and tens or hundreds of thousands of people convinced of certain ways of treating lymphedema and so on, I think it would warrant mention in the article. Likewise with manual lymph drainage. —Tarnas 00:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
The onus of proof always lies on the person making the wild claim, not the person who does not believe them. None of the links you provided sound anything like good evidence. If you find a good quality unbiased, well-researched article that supports your position, I'd like to read it. Alex.tan 01:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Again, dropping the comment about feeling lymph (you'll feel it one day... :)  ha!), the actual practice of manual lymph drainage or using massage to alter the lymphatic system is common enough. The list of references above is not meant to prove the scientific worth of the practice, but to prove its existence and therefore its being noteworthy. Again, if there were a popular video game all about the lymphatic system, it should be mentioned, and similarly a practice known to and used by many doctors and therapists, regardless of its viability, should be noted because it's topical. Is there some kind of WP standard prohibiting this? There seem to be policies for the inclusion I'm discussing (1 (obvious idea though dated), 2).
The original comment doesn't claim or require scientific viability: Some physical therapists or other practitioners of manipulative therapy can perform a "lymphatic release" by massaging areas of the body where lymph is found to be flowing irregularly. Such releases are intended to unblock poorly circulating lymph, though poor circulation is often indicative of systemic bodily malaise not soluble through massage alone. A note should be made that this is a common healing practice, not a scientifically proven regimen. Since there's no "Treatment of disorders" section in this article maybe I should move this comment to lymphedema. —Tarnas 00:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, your edit requires verifiability - it states that: 1. some people can perform a lymphatic release and 2. that the movement of lymph can be felt. It does not state that this is an alternative health claim not supported by evidence or research. Just because lots of people believe in it does not make it correct. An unverifiable claim should be stated as such and not presented as if it were the truth. It does not matter which article you insert it in, unless you have some reasonable evidence to back up this claim, it must be phrased as an unverifiable claim. Alex.tan 01:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Come on, I just said that the "lymph can be felt" comment is dropped. The new note would read: Some physical therapists or other practitioners of manipulative therapy can perform what is known as a "lymphatic release" or "manual lymph drainage" by massaging areas of the body where lymph is found to be flowing irregularly. Such releases are intended to unblock poorly circulating lymph, especially in the management of lymphedema, though this is only a common practice and not widely accepted as a scientifically proven regimen for treatment of the lymphatic system. There's no claim here that the practice is scientifically proven/accepted, and the references I cited above demonstrate that such a practice is known and supported by legitimate lymphologists, massage therapists, and crackpot docs alike. Here's more evidence (1, 2) demonstrating that what I'm talking about is verifiable in the WP sense.
     Given the extensive literature cited about manual lymph drainage, I'm led to belive that it is a scientifically proven practice, that to say otherwise is false, though I don't have access to many of the sources cited in the documents I cite here and above so I can't review that claim right now. You can search PubMed for more evidence that this is a common enough topic of scientific inquiry, that it is a used practice, and that it is therefore notable. There's a policy for dealing with this exact case: it seems like you don't want a note to be made of "manual lymph drainage" simply because you haven't heard of it or don't think it works, but neither of those reasons matter given the documentation I've provided. To quote, Just because something is not an accepted scientific fact, as determined by the prevailing scientific consensus, does not mean that it should not be reported and referenced in Wikipedia. —Tarnas 23:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Allrighty. To settle the issue, I took the time and liberty to do a medline search and I came up with this recent Cochrane review: PMID 15495042. The quotable quote in their results is: "and that MLD provided no extra benefit at any point during the trial". Again, my only problem with your original edit was that it sounded like it was providing gospel truth which it isn't. I think the only fair word to use is to say that practitioners of manipulative therapy claim to be able to release lymph flow. Alex.tan 04:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, let's compromise on that caveat, is the following text acceptable to you?

Some physical therapists or other practitioners of manipulative therapy are trained to perform what is known as a "lymphatic release" or "manual lymph drainage" by massaging areas of the body where lymph is found to be flowing irregularly. Such releases are intended to unblock poorly circulating lymph, especially in the management of lymphedema, though these therapies are only common practices and not widely accepted as effective, scientifically proven methods for treatment of the lymphatic system.

These therapists do preform MLD, are trained to do it, they don't simply claim to do it, but like a tarot card reader there's no claim here that the routine is effective. This is prominently noted. Okay?
But second of all, give me a break, this link you provide (PMID 15495042) goes to a study where the test groups were small, the experiments not repeated, drop-out rates high in two test groups, and ultimately the entire study was reviewed as follows: "All three trials have their limitations and have yet to be replicated, so their results must be viewed with caution. There is a clear need for well-designed, randomised trials of the whole range of physical therapies if the best approach to managing lymphoedema is to be determined." The data collection section makes this even more explicit: "DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two blinded reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the poor quality of the trials." [Emphasis added.] This study you're linking to does nothing to prove or disprove MLD, and does not settle this issue of MLD's worth at all... if anything it simply reenforces the fact that MLD is a notable topic of scientific inquiry, and that you are taking quotes (the "quotable quote", "and that MLD provided no extra benefit at any point during the trial") seriously out of context. —Tarnas 04:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, your final edit sounds good. However, if you were not already aware, Cochrane reviews are far from bunk - they are meta-reviews done of massive numbers of articles by trained professionals. Read the full text of the article. They found 195 articles and cut the list down to 10 because the other 185 were not randomised, controlled trials. Of the remaining ten, they limited their meta-analysis to three articles because they found the other studies to be insufficiently well performed (not randomised control, duration not long enough, not enough participants or whatever other reason). A Cochrane review finding is usually the best available evidence available to date precisely because they have gone to the trouble to search through all the articles and sifted out the ones worth reading. If a current Cochrane review finds that MLD provides no added benefit, there is currently no good evidence to show that MLD does provide a benefit. And that's the point - nobody has done a randomised, controlled trial that shows that MLD provides a benefit over bandaging; all trials so far that attempted to prove MLD provides a benefit are of poor quality. Ask any credible doctor about what a Cochrane review means if you don't believe me. Alex.tan 15:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Alright, cool. Maybe we should write Cochrane review. —Tarnas 18:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AWESOME

This web page is so cool. But you guys could make your writing a little bigger in size. Well need more pics and yah. You guys put a lot of thinking into it and well good job!! Well hopefully you have a nice internet going with others!! >:( MAD!!

[edit] The introduction

The terms lymphatic system and immune system are NOT used interchangeably. The lymphatic system is from WHERE the immune system 1. obtains new immune cells and 2.(mostly) performs it's functions, but they are not the same thing. The lymphatic system is a part of the immune system. --DO11.10 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education

Why do we not learn about this system in elementary school like most other body systems? It just doesn't make sense. Nate | Talk Esperanza! 02:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

that was a disgusting pic so i just had to delete it!!! rdsess

[edit] Picture issues

I noticed that the picture does not meet the copyright criteria mentioned under the pictures page. Just a thought.

Bonzi77 02:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind changing the image, but I'm not sure what part of the copyright criteria the image doesn't meet. I would appreciate it if you would develop your thought a little more. Any input from other editor's is welcome.3dscience 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know for sure, but I would guess that Bonzi77 is confused about the attribution part. The Image:3DScience lymphatic system.jpg license says: Attribution must appear super-imposed on the image itself, fully legible when at the full published resolution. But there is no attribution visible on the image as it appears in the article. Just a guess though??--DO11.10 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hehe...Yeah. DO11 is right in thinking that I meant the attribution part. The template says that if it's in Wikimedia it's ok, but it's the text under "file history" that confuses me. Bonzi77 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article for "lymph"

I've landed on this page after a search for term "lymph". It seems strange that there is no article for the word "lymph" --Dibbe 16:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lymphoid Organs

I think it would be good if someone separated the organs into primary and secondary. (Dan 02:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] So what is lymph?

Lymph redirects here, but this article lacks a clear articulation of what lymph (i.e. the fluid) consists of. Dragons flight (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)