Talk:Spondylolysis

Untitled

The diagram of the “scotty dog” outline was an interesting way to describe the pars defect. There is a good amount of pictures and diagrams. There was a sufficient amount of information. The organization of the information could be improved. The information was in long detailed paragraphs and should be more short concise.

Proposed merger

I've removed the tag proposing a merge with spondylosis. Although the disorders have very similar names–and probably cause a great deal of confusion–they are quite distinct.

Spondylosis is a type of osteoarthritis affecting the spine; it is primarily a disorder of the intervertebral joints.

Spondylolysis (this page) is, essentially, a fracture of a spinal vertebra. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please correct!

Dear Wikipedia:

There is a significant error on this page: in your treatment section, you have quoted a meta-analysis of the treatment of spondylosis (which is degenerative arthritis) rather than one on spondylolysis (which is a congenital or traumatic fracture of the pars interarticularis of the vertebrae). I do not know if a similar study has been done on patients with spondylolysis. I'd like to slap the 19th century geniuses who named these disorders, because confusion over their definitions and treatments have caused a lot of misery, both for physicians and back pain sufferers. --66.91.104.146 07:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Substantial rewrite needed

I feel this article needs a substantial rewrite. I have found several websites describing diagnosis and treatment [1][2][3], however, I feel I am unqualified to attempt such a rewrite.

The Google cache link in Causes is broken. Should it be removed?

Also, should the section on Diagnosis link to this page instead of directly to the images? Jgiam (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The second image mislabels the pars interarticularis as "facet joints." This is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.32 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Praise and suggestions

The diagram of the “scotty dog” outline was an interesting way to describe the pars defect. There is a good amount of pictures and diagrams. There was a sufficient amount of information. The organization of the information could be improved. The information was in long detailed paragraphs and should be more short concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.205.201 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 18 February 2012‎ ‎ This article has a good lead that gives a concise flow of information. It gets everything set for the ensuing sections. The article contains exceptional section headings, and is well structured.Paliquito (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I like how Spondyloysis is immediately defined including words it should not be confused with. This article has a plenty of information and is explained well. The “Risk Factors” section should add explanations of what makes these sports a greater risk factor. Pictures on this page emphasize the problems of what it would look like to have Spondyloysis. For all of the information given there should be more citations. In the “Surgery” and “Complications” sections it would sound better to take away the bullet format and make them into complete sentences and paragraph format. Flashy1110 (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Notes on Spondylolysis

a. Good i. I liked how there are so many sections and how descriptive each section was with all the information. ii. I appreciated how there were links to different words in each segment so that the reader can click on the link and research further so that they can fully understand what is being talked about iii. I liked the section on causes and mechanisms as it fully went into detail on the subject and the readers could pull a lot of information from this area. b. Needs Work i. More pictures can be included so that the reader can see more views. Maybe under the photo marked with the red lines, there can be a zoom in section so that they can see it more clearly. ii. The introduction could be a bit longer as some readers usually only go into reading this portion. If there was more information, it would be better detailed and more helpful to readers. iii. Risk Factors section is too short. When I read it, I did not fully understand at first how it was formatted. I suggest putting in commas in between the sports as well as linking them to their pages on Wikipedia. Please elaborate in more detail so that readers understand what point is trying to be made with this subject. Maybe going into detail on why each sport is a risk factor, and elongating each segment can help.

Sscho87 (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)sscho87 02/18/2012

Error with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spondylolysis.jpg image

Readers should note that the while the uploader should be commended on his contribution, (s)he has incorrectly labelled the pars interarticularis as being facet joints. For facet joints, the arrows should be pointing to the space between the articulation of superior and inferior facets.

I agree. the image is mislabeled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.249.183.74 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The picture is mislabeled . It is a very nice illustration of the spinal anatomy but in this condition the defect is in the pars interarticularis which is incorrectly labeled as "facet joint" and this could cause significant confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocSut (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this image shouldn't be used at all, given that it 1) is mislabeled and 2) uses title case, which is not supported by the manual of style. ~TPW 17:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Random pain physician here, I concur, the image is mis-labeled. Also, it isn't a great top image in my opinion since it does not even demonstrate spondylolysis (though the red line may be attempting to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.234.4.37 (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)