Talk:Shunt (medical)

Are there any other kinds of shunts? Is a tracheotomy tube a shunt? Or the ones used for emergency release of air from the thoracic cavity after major lung injury? Quite possibly there are more. bcatt 09:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

New edits and thoughts on how to improve the article

I moved Pulmonary Shunt from the Cerebral Shunt heading into it's own heading and wikified some of the terms, but I think it needs a bit more explanation and a link to it's own article.

Also, perhaps the portosystemic shunt should have a little blurb that includes the current link to it's own article? With the other two items under "see also", it doesn't seem appropriate to include them here...perhaps there should be one of those templates at the top that links to the shunt disambig page? I had added a "shunt (medical)" link to the shunt disambig page, but it was removed when some vandalism was removed, but I'll get that put back. Any thoughts? bcatt 22:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add a section with a brief description on portosystemic shunts, but I don't know anything about this type of shunt in humans. Please add anything you think might be appropriate. --Joelmills 05:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Split

I think this page ought to be split into separate pages for the different types of medical shunts. Any thoughts/objections? --Arcadian 16:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

CP Connection?

Is there a connection between patients with cerebral palsy and shunt implants? I know several people with both and I'm curious about the association...

Shunts - cause or coincidence?

I changed the word "cause" to "occur in conjuction with" in the heart defects section, because unless I am grossly mistaken the defects do not cause shunts; the presence of shunts, as separate defects, merely allows the infant to survive where otherwise it would not, possibly perishing in utero, as a result of defects such as transposition of the great vessels. Ataru 03:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

--72.79.49.254 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The use of "cause" was in relation to shunt defects themselves, not to say that other defects (non-shunting ones) cause shunting defects. You are correct that shunting defects often occur inconjunction with, but are not caused by other defects such as TGV. Shunting defects are also common in cases of other non-heart defects, such as genetic abberations (Down syndrome, for example) or defects of other organs. However, stating the original wording in a different way, it would read:

"ASD, VSD, PDA, and PFO are the most common shunting CHDs" or "ASD, VSD, PDA, and PFO are the most common congenital causes of cardiac shunting."

In other words, though the shunting is occurring "in conjunction with" a ASD, VSD, PDA, or PFO, that wording does not convey that the shunting exists because of the presence of one or more of these defects (which is the case, so "cause" is the most appropriate choice here)...did that make sense?

I don't believe that transposed vessels can cause in utero death, as the foramen ovale and ductus arteriosis are present to bypass almost all functions of the cardio-pulmonary circulation, though you are correct that these defects are lifesaving once the child with TGV is born. bcatt 20:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right on that last point - fortunately I am making incorrect assertions on talk rather than in the article ;-) I still don't really like the word "cause" in this context, though. It's possible that I'm being overly pedantic here, but "cause" to me suggests a cause-and-effect relationship of a sort that we have agreed does not exist. Ataru 04:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The shunting behaviour is caused by the presence of a VSD, ASD, PFO, or PDA...if none of these defects are present, there is no shunt. There is cause-and-effect between shunting behaviour and the defects listed above...what we are agreeing about is that there isn't necessarily a cause-and-effect relationship between is shunting defects and other, more serious defects (like TGV). The opening paragraph of this article is simply saying that the shunting is present because the ASD, VSD, PFO, or PDA exists...so I'm not sure we're agreeing on that point. I am saying that an ASD, VSD, PFO, or PDA cause shunting (ie: there would not be any shunting without one of these defects); while you are saying that ASD, VSD, PFO, and PDA do not cause shunting (ie: there is no causal connection between these defects and the shunting behaviour, but they often occur at the same time). Do you see why I am saying that it should say "cause"? bcatt 04:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)