Talk:Inguinal hernia

Yeah

Yeah, I know these comments on talk pages hardly ever get read :-)

Should I move indirect inguinal hernia to just a section of inguinal hernia? Then it could discuss the difference. T 11:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Uh, lemme see. Either one of us could do an "inguinal hernia" page, covering both, or they could both be put within the extant "hernia" page, as inguinal hernias are the ones most people would want to look up. Sfahey 03:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of just going back one step to inguinal. Is there a nice generic term for intestinal hernia? Because femoral (and all the other) "gut-bulging" hernias are similar enough to be discussed as one.

For now, i'll just move indirect/direct to inguinal. Maybe have a link to femoral hernia from there. Tristanb 01:10, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Curiously, I just returned from sideline medical coverage at a soccer game. No players got hurt, but as I was leaving the trainer asked me to check out a pain that struck him during the game, and returned whenever he coughed. Bingo. Inguinal hernia. Only time I ever examined someone in a mens room stall. The vast majority of hernias, specifically the ones enumerated in the wikipedia "hernia" page, are of the abdominal wall. i think "inguinal hernias", which in turn make up >75% of these, should be included in, and dominate, the "hernia" page, with gentle mention of hernias elsewhere, as in the brain or when a muscle busts through its sheath. i'm off line for a couple days, but will check back. Sfahey 03:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And please, tell me whether the convention is to add to the bottom or to the top of the message list. It's confusing when some bozos don't date their comments. Sfahey 03:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For discussions etc. add your messages to the bottom. It's a lot easier to read forward than backwards. :-)

The hernia article already has a mention of inguinal hernia right at the beginning. I might try to tidy it up a little bit if i remember; a lot of the terms are just definitions, and it would be difficult writing a whole article about them.

I've got a female friend with a small hernia, i don't know where exactly it comes from, but i'll get a photo next time i see her. (Provided the picture is decent enough.) Tristanb 06:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delaying surgery

We need to mention the recent study (was it JAMA?) that deferring surgery is not harmful in uncomplicated hernias. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Overlapping content

Within this article is a section called "groin hernias" that is obviously redundant to the main topic of the article. Anyone up for fixing/combining back into one discussion? I just fixed a ton of typos. Sfahey 21:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Current images present more questions than they answer

Image:Inguinalhernia.gif needs an accompanying image, showing what is normal.

Without proper explanation, one does not even know if Image:Gray1084.png is talking about a male or female, etc. Jidanni 23:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"New method of tension free open inguinal hernia repair without mesh, based on physiological principle"

Mesh is a foreign body. Therefore, its use in hernia repairs is known to cause complications like pain, recurrence, infection etc. An innovative new technique of inguinal hernia repair without mesh has been published in the international journals. It uses your own body muscle for repair. The trials conducted by many surgeons from different countries have shown virtually zero% recurrence rate. , , , , , , , , , , , , , This inguinal hernia surgery is without mesh or any foreign body. Even sutures used are absorbable, a thing which was never imagined till today. An undetached strip of the external oblique aponeurosis goes behind the cord to form a new posterior wall between the inguinal ligament and the muscle arch. This newly formed posterior wall is kept physiologically dynamic by the additional muscle strength given by the external oblique muscle. There are almost no recurrences, no pain, patient can go home in a day after surgery and drive car and go to office in 3-4 days time.121.247.67.2 (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Erectile dysfunction

I wonder if an undiscovered hernia inguinalis is a common and underestimated cause of erectile dysfunctions. After years of sudden erectile problems and no diagnosis I had a hernia surgery last year. Since then my erectile problems disappeared although I did not expect any connection between both ailments. I have studied the anatomy since then a bit and came to the conclusion that the pressure in the abdomen due to the hernia may influence the ability to have an erection. Does anyone know about research about that connection? 92.225.139.103 (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

mention non-surgical possible alternative treatment to surgery, though not backed by medical studies

I added a mention of non-surgical possible alternative "treatment" (pilates exercises), although to my knowledge, these exercices are not backed by peer-reviewed medical evidence. Wikipedia:MEDRS#Other_sources says that non-academic sources should be used with caution (though it does not say that they should not be used at all), so this deserves explanation:

This non-surgical alternative "treatment" dates back to the pre-surgery era of the 19th century (historical references are welcome), and the idea that physical exercices can replace surgery is notable and still widely held (see forums, etc...I can give references on request). The purpose of mentioning them on wikipedia is twofold:

1. to my knowledge, these exercices are not supported by any medical study (whatever your friend/doctor/surgeon will say).

2. to my knowledge, these exercices are not denied by any medical study either (whatever your friend/doctor/surgeon/medical information website will say), though, given their popularity and a priori reasonableness (hernia is due to muscular weakness), they certainly deserve to be assessed clinically.

So the good compromise seems to mention them, while insisting that they are not backed by medical studies, and warn the reader that they must be taken with caution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokotillon (talk • contribs) 11:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We need proper references.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The time to include information in an encyclopedia is when it has received sufficient notice from reliable sources. However, we hold medical claims to an even higher standard, and expect to see scholarly secondary sources, preferably reviews of the field. I'm afraid that some website claiming that an alternative treatment helps just doesn't fit in with the way we work here. If there is any validity in the claim, it will be discussed in the serious literature. If there is a historical belief, then it will be noted in the medical literature dealing with old theories. Without serious, high-quality sources, this claim is not suitable for inclusion in our encyclopedia. It might be worth reading WP:REDFLAG to understand why we think unusual claims require the best quality sources, not the poorest. --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I understand. But I can still mention these exercices in the "medical management section" as "increasing comfort", which does not require such high standard of proof (I guess that saying "physical exercice feels good" does not require a such high level of evidence (these exercices are really helpful anyway, and people should have access to them).Mokotillon (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Saying that exercise feels good with proper refs would belong on the exercise page but not really here. If they are really helpful would need good refs.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I add them instead in a new section called "common practices"? (that replaces the section "medical management", which is wrongly denominated, as it contains no ref to pubmed). I just feel that reporting what people actually do with their disease is important in an article about a medical condition (as far as this practice meets WP:notability), even if the medical community has not written anything about it yet. If no medical ref is available, it is the problem of academics, not of the people, who will not wait passively for medical attention to organize themselves. At the end, the object of medicine is human beings, not just academic papers (this is why a lot of good doctors never publish anything). Wikipedia seems suitable for this wider perspective: Wikipedia is not a doctor.

However, I understand that medical information needs high quality medical sources. But should the content of articles about medical conditions be restricted to medical information? This is my point: I am moving this general issue to the talk page of WP:MEDRS.Mokotillon (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)