Talk:Hemorrhoid

It is requested that a diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hemorrhoid. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hemorrhoid at the Reference desk.

Prevalence

Can anyone provide some non-U.S based statistics please? I've added the globalize/USA tag to that section. Crimson Shadow 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor definition

Very remarkably, this article fails to explain what a hemorrhoid actually is. There is a very useful discussion, including pictures, at one web site. (I'll try to find it again.) 金 (Kim) 01:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello, isn't hemorrhoid defined as varicosed (inflamed) rectal veins? Hfwd 06:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've just put on a title so it doesn't mess up the contents thingy. Hope you don't mind.Crimson Shadow 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of treatment listing

I find it curious that mediacl treatments have been listed first. It seems more reasonable to go in the order a person would naturally proceed in his/her efforts, from least extraordinary (lowest risk and cost) to most, with surgery being the last extreme. I am changing the order in accordance with that thought until further discussion. I am also using the neutral point of view to clarify that different people use different treatments. Tom H. 17:10, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Reading on the toilet?

I'd like to know how reading on the toilet qualifies as a- "poor bathroom habits" and b- a cause for Hemorrhoids. Is this a joke? LeoDV 3 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)

Not at all. Not a joke. Is there some way we need to improve the statement or clarify? Tom Haws July 3, 2005 20:19 (UTC)

I agree with LeoDV, how does reading on the toilet cause haemorrhoids? Sounds like something my grandmother would tell me, not something that belongs in an encyclopaedia. --Rathilien 03:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From eMedicine article "Prolonged sitting on a toilet (eg, while reading) is believed to cause a relative venous return problem in the perianal area (a tourniquet effect), resulting in enlarged hemorrhoids." [1] Hfwd 16:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely our point. So it should read more like "Prolonged sitting on the toilet may increase the likelihood of haemorrhoids" not "Reading on the toilet causes haemorrhoids". That fact that you happen to be reading while you're sitting is beside the point, maybe I play my laptop while I sit on the toilet - I guess this won't cause haemorrhoids because I'm not reading. Sorry for being sarcastic, but you see my point. --Rathilien 04:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Funny. Just as this morning I was wondering about an image for this article, someone comes along and does exactly what I thought would be an outrageous example of why some images are a poor excuse for what an encyclopedia can be. I was going to say, "Should I photograph myself for the Hemorrhoid article?" And here along comes a fellow who does just that. I realize we don't have paid artists on staff, but until we can procure some high quality line sectional illustrations, we will just have to do without images. The information presented from surface photos is not clear, and the grossology factor outweighs any informative value it might have. This also applies, I think to photographing yourself for the penis or nipple article. A photo simply does not inform and educate like a good, full-color, sectional illustration. Need we gross out just for fun? Tom Haws July 8, 2005 04:27 (UTC)

Agreed. Photographs of the real thing don't belong. If it's not safe for family-type viewing, there's no educational value in it. --crumb 8 July 2005 05:25 (UTC)

Leonard suggested we might have a text link "See here for a photograph." I think Leonard and I see essentially eye to eye. I note again that the particular image in question is really not very enlightening about hemorrhoids. It pretty much is essentially a picture of a clean anus with a sore and hair near it. The sore is not quintessentially hemorrhoidal in appearance, from what I can see. I really like Leonard's suggestion of a text link because it resolves the main problem which is that a lot of people would probably rather not read the article than have that image taking their picture. Again, this isn't the right image, but if there are strong feelings in favor of it, a text link is a good compromise that invites improvement. Tom Haws July 8, 2005 14:41 (UTC)

I've deleted links to the pictures as it was taken from another website and may be copyrighted Hfwd 17:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. When I added the image to this article, I haven't stopped and taken copyright issues with the photograph into consideration. I only added the photograph to end the stupid troll war with CunningLinguist14 who persistently inserted a photograph of an anal fissure into the article. (see history) --crumb 17:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

No worries - I understand. Troll war is the bane of wiki.Hfwd 17:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody copyrighted a picture of a haemorrhoid? Geez, what's the human race coming to... --Rathilien 03:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to remove the picture itself? I am rather disgusted by it and that was not the reason why I came to the page.

This is simple if you are offened by it don't look at it. its rather simpleYourname 23:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current picture is good and I think it certainly belongs in the article since it does show the truth. (Image:Hemorrhoids1.jpg) Although I also agree it is gross and shocking to see. But if the rest of you prefer shrinking the size of the image or changing it to a text link I won't disagree. By the way, I think that image might be good to have there to show to those that say we should "suck it up" and stop complaining about our "minor" problem. --David Göthberg 06:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC) (Who's actually in for surgery tomorrow...)[reply]

The current pictures are repulsive and unnecessary. They are not enlightening in any way and only have shock value. I am removing them.

I dont like the image. I would definitly support a text link to the picture for those interested. At its current position, its impossible to NOT see it.

I propose we delete the picture, not because it's gross, but because it's misleading. The picture seems to be a prolapsed grade III or IV hemorrhoid, which is a severe (and chronic) form of hemorrhoid afflicting only a small portion of patients. If we need to put a picture, then we should use an endoscopic image of a grade I or II hemorrhoid, the most common form. Hfwd 15:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this one is simple if you don't like it don't look at it now quit compling and whining Yourname 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop removing the pic until a vote has been made on one said to remove itYourname 19:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Users who agree with the above may remove the picture, without having to wait for some arbitrary vote. --Hetar 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unless you are in chage here i will restore the picture if it is removed untill someone who IS in chage says differentYourname 23:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My $0.0.2: I don't think that "it's gross" should be a reason to remove the photo since, like it or not, it does inform the reader about what hemorrhoids look like. However, I also agree with Hfwd's opinion - if it's misleading in that it doesn't represent the most likely physical appearance of the condition then that particular photo shouldn't be there. As far as a sectional illustration goes, that would also be worthwhile, but in addition to, rather than instead of a photo. -- Hux 06:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well for me the picture has great value, because I decided to see a doctor soon after I see what my small (POSSIBLY, that's why I need to check a doctor) Hemorrhoid problem could become! In this way it's been very useful and I also think seeing an actual picture always helps. But I agree we should add a note about the "grade", that is depicted here.

From my POV as a med student, it should be there. This is an encyclopedia you know. I'm adding it again, with an explanation of the fact that those are indeed more serious forms. Grossness is not a valid arguement. And please, everyone sign your comments with for tildes like this ~~~~.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some diagrams from NIH -- I believe these are public domain, per {{PD-USGov-HHS-NIH}}:

And here area a few other public domain photos, from other language versions of Wikipedia:

That might give us a few more choices. — Catherine\^talk 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never use ADAM-pictures, those are NOT {{PD-USGov-HHS-NIH}}. I'm going for the German picture.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 20:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I thought they'd work so well here too, but I see you're right. Ick. I'm adding a "diagram requested" tag at the top of the page here, and I'll try contacting a couple of the folks on Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Graphic artists and see if they can take on this ugly job. Sorry about the mislead.... — Catherine\^talk 20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to User:WikipedianProlific, who has agreed to make a diagram for the page sometime in the next week or so! — Catherine\^talk 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

natural treatments

I suggest that we add "using bidets" to the natural treatments section? Here is a quote from ehow.com: "3. Cleanse your rectal area thoroughly after each bowel movement." (http://www.ehow.com/how_9823_care-hemorrhoids-postpartum.html)

Suppositories

The article notes that suppositories "add very little since all of the symptoms come from the external tissues and not up in the rectum where the suppository goes." There are two problems with this: 1) the article notes that some hemorrhoids are external while some are internal so, according to the logic in the above statement, suppositories should address the internal ones, and 2) if suppositories "add very little" then why do doctors regularly prescribe them after an examination? -- Hux 06:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, suppositories can be helpful to reduce straining and thus reducing venous pressure. Also, Hydrocortisone suppositories are standard therapy. Bdolcourt 14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation styles

I have re-cast the references using cite.php, and have started re-formatting them using the citation templates. I hope to get a chance to finish the job sometime soon, but don't let that stop you if you want to beat me to the punch! --Slashme 11:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images are Disgusting

Especially the second one. This is the Wikipedia, not some shock website. I think an image like this would be much more suitable [2] --void main 14:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That photo has very little educational value. 24.175.10.61 03:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The endoscopic views are pretty good. An image of an external grade I or II hemorrhoid would likely be quite beneficial. The Grade III/IV ones currently there are probably excessive. A cartoon of the course of the hemorrhoidal veins would also be beneficial. Bdolcourt 14:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck

Strong delete Please, someone, remove them.

Keep These images can be disgusting for some people, but that's the truth. How to illustrate the article without these? I know this is a hard problem, maybe I'm against removing them because of being a medical student. So I should say: don't remove them. But if too many editor want these to remove, then there's no choice. NCurse _work 06:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep

If I can add a comment from a patient's point of view: My wife recently had haemorrhoid surgery, and this kind of image is actually helpful to the more curious patient who really wants to know what a haemorrhoid looks like from inside, and what a severe haemorrhoid can look like. I think it is reasonable to apply some censorship to inflammatory (no pun intended!) and frankly pornographic images, but these images are directly explanatory to the material. If these images are considered disgusting by some, that's not so surprising, as varicose haemorrhoids are by nature rather disgusting things (in so far as a disease can be considered to be disgusting). So this is my strongly felt vote to keep these images. --Slashme 08:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete them? Because some people find them disgusting? I hate the appearance of wasps, but I'm not complaining about images of wasps being in the wasp article. Crimson Shadow 22:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are relevant to the article. Medical pictures are often not all that "sexy" to look at, but these are not speculative imo. and are relevant to the topic. galar71 23:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Playing with your hemorrhoids"

This paragraph doesn't seem to have been written in a serious manor - perhaps a rewrite is in order?

Rectocele

Just curious -- is there any medical connection between hemorrhoids and rectoceles? Does having one condition affect the likelihood of having the other? And what does a doctor do if the patient has both? — Catherine\^talk 02:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two are not really related. A rectocele comes from weakening of the musculature around the anus. It often results from injury druing childbirth, but can have other causes. Hemerrhoids result from a back up of blood and resulting outpouching of the hemorrhoidal veins. Definitive treatment of both requires seperate surgical procedures, although it may be possible to do both procedures at the same time. A colorectal surgeon could likely give a much more informed opinion. Bdolcourt 15:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]