Talk:Inguinal canal

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

A question on structural parallels[edit]

Is there any relation between the inguinal canal and the female vagina? I had wondered if this was so, but if women also have the canal, I suppose there is no relation between them. GBC (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. It contains round ligament of uterus, and proper nerves and vessels of course.--217.153.212.193 (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

injury to pelvic region/inuinal canal[edit]

my son was hit in the pelvic region with his bicycle handlebar about 3 weeks ago. 2 weeks ago he developed an oval shaped lump about 2 inches long and it is still there. his dr is "baffled" and doesn't know what it could be. he had a ct scan and that shows "inflammatory change in the region of the right inguinal canal with multiple tiny bilateral inguinal lymph nodes of uncertain significance". He sees a 2nd dr tomorrow but would like to get as much info as possible. any knowledge/experience with this sort of injury? --Debrat (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding boundries[edit]

Am I correct If I assume the canal should be viewed as going in a completely lateral-medial direction for these boundries to make sense? If so, a clarification would be excellent. I don't dare edit in case I'm mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.72.205 (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Deep inguinal ring[edit]

It's confusing and unnecessary to have separate articles for the inguinal canal, its start and end. By displaying all this on one page we can make the article easier to read and reduce needless fragmentation. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful to have a separate article, because it is more specific. When a reader wants information specifically on the superficial inguinal ring, they do not have to hunt through a larger article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.110.185.130 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with 156.110.185.130 that there should be 'no merge given that the superficial and deep inguinal rings are independently notable, as important anatomical and surgical landmarks, and also because of their distinct importance in hernias. Klbrain (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Superficial inguinal ring[edit]

As above Tom (LT) (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Superficial and deep rings are absolutely part of the same structure-the inguinal canal. (med student) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.78.50.53 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Superficial inguinal ring[edit]

Makes sense to merge here. Provides more context, topics are logically covered together, and reduces needless fragmentation of articles. Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]