Talk:Brown-Séquard syndrome

Early comment

Suggested template for Orthopaedic Conditions (see Talk:Orthopedic surgery) is
Name
Definition
Synonyms
Incidence
Pathogenesis
Pathology
Stages
Classification
Natural History/Untreated Prognosis
Clinical Features
Investigation
Non-Operative Treatment
Risks of Non-Operative Treatment
Prognosis following Non-Operative Treatment
Operative Treatment (Note that each operations should have its own wiki entry)
Risks of Operative Treatment
Prognosis Post Operation
Complications
Management
Prevention
History
--Mylesclough 05:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Too many examples

Encyclopedic style doesn't usually extend to providing nineteen separate examples of the same condition. The goal is to provide a description of the condition, not a description of nineteen individual cases. An encyclopedia article should provide all of the generalizable information, along with a few examples if they are necessary to illustrate the descriptions, but not nineteen examples.

See Wikipedia:Writing better articles for further ideas about how to make this article less like a series of case histories and more like an encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree: This kind of writting would be great for a medical student's book, but not for an encyclopedia. Most paragraphs on examples should be simplified to a single sentence of the kind of B-S Syndrome can be caused by MS lesiones in the cervical cord; mimicking a tumor; and the reference.--Garrondo (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The article should not contain these examples. WP:MOSMED is our guideline for writing about this sort of article (i.e. a medical syndrome). Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Good case studies

Would agree that the examples do not belong. These are some interesting cases. Well written with great images. Perhaps we could move them to Case studies of Brown-Sequard syndrome. Than rewrite the remaining material as a encyclopedic article.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Splitting off is a very useful first step. I have now nominated the subarticle for AFD, because I believe this content should go to WikiBooks or some other resource. JFW | T@lk 19:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See also

There's been a bit of back-and-forth over the ==See also== section, so I'm asking any and all the editor(s) in favor of it to please follow the link, which is now a redirect back to this very article. If you also think that it would be kind of stupid to tell readers to "see also" the same page that they're reading right now, then please don't restore it. Thanks, 03:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

change order of headings

history should follow the introduction and not be left for the end. There needs to be no epidemiology heading if it only states the disease is rare. The rare occurrence can simply be stated in the introduction.

AriaNo11 (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no objection to these changes. WP:Be bold. -- œ^™ 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Way too many references for the line about expectant therapy

Let's just pick a few, this is an encyclopedia, there's no need to backup a uncontroversial statement with a dozen references. Especially when they're all only use once.

something doesn't add up in the crude/light touch section

wouldn't decussation at the spinal cord of the ST tract cause contralateral loss of crude touch, not "demonstration" of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.15.105 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Brown-Séquard syndrome → Brown–Séquard syndrome – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Tony (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOSDASH clearly requires the en dash where the double is two people rather than one with a hyphenated surname. I see this title has been pushed back and forth in previous years. I recommend that it be regularised to a dash, like all analogous article titles on en.WP. Tony (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support guideline-adhering move. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose guideline-violating move. The syndrome is named after Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard, i.e. one person with a double-barrelled name. Favonian (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Favonian. --WS (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I googled and searched otherwise and saw a ref to "Brown" as a co-author. My mistake. Please withdraw this request. Tony (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed request template. --WS (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brown-Séquard syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614022142/http://medinfo.ufl.edu/year2/neuro/review/images/fig02.jpg to http://medinfo.ufl.edu/year2/neuro/review/images/fig02.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Mistake - Anterior vs Lateral Spinothalamic tract

"The loss of the spinothalamic tract leads to pain and temperature sensation being lost from the contralateral side beginning one or two segments below the lesion." We would see only the loss of mechanoreceptors/pressure as only in the Anterior Spinothalamic Tract the second Neuron branches and descends and ascends (descend max. 2). The Lateral (resp. for pain and temp) doesn't descends. --95.105.236.157 (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)