Talk:Cauterization

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as High-importance).

Untitled

I vote the first order of business be to clear up when and where this was practiced in cases where we would not cauterize now. It seems to me that people don't get nasal cauterizations in America in 2006 because they have too many nosebleeds, so we need to explain better when we used this and why we stopped?66.41.66.213 04:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maby you stoped useing cauterization to stop nosebleeds in america but that dosent mean the whole world hase, I use Silver Nitrate myself to cauterise in the case of exsessive nosebleeds.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.49.175 (talk • contribs)

p.s-ive JUST had cautery done with silver nitrate to recfity a tear within my nose and to stop the nosebleeds. silvernitrate is used most often — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.122.196 (talk • contribs)

Factual accuracy

Electrocautery and Electrosurgery are not the same. No current is passed through tissue in electrocautery, while it is in electrosurgery. So, this entire article is factually wrong. Wikindian 18:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikindian is right about Electrocautery and electrosurgery not being the same. His/her second statement is technically wrong. Although it is not meant to, current does pass through the patient in electrocautery as the machine-patient curcuit is not isolated from ground. Electrosurgery involves HF diathermy machines which isolate the machine-patient circuit from ground, allowing current to flow through the patient but not to ground.--MechaZawa 02:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that there is no such thing as "monothermy", diathermy is actually a greek word meaning "heating through".--MechaZawa 02:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The different methods of cauterization include burning the affected area with acid, hot metal, lasers, or silver nitrate. Such a procedure is naturally quite painful." This... isn't fantastically accurate. I had this done twice (silver nitrate) and it really didn't hurt much at all. Unpleasant, yes, but not "quite painful" by a long shot. --Shardz (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First we hear that cauterization was ‘first discovered by Andreas Vesalius’, then we hear that it was already known in Antiquity — and indeed it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.162.213.122 (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture labeled "electrocauter" is inaccurate. It is in fact, an electrosurgical pen/pencil. An electrocauter is generally a battery operated, portable device that heats a wire to allow for cautery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.25.104 (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

misplaced links

The links for Diathermy and Singe in the "Religious Beliefs" section are not religious in nature. They seem like they belong in a "See Also" section. 80.235.57.239 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Agreed, recommended addition of "See Also" title. 86.25.252.242 (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Already done! 76.21.37.87 (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of sources

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology, medicine and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. I searched the page history, and found 3 edits by Jagged 85 in December 2007 and 2 more edits in June 2007. Tobby72 (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empty nose syndrome - misleading / unsupported by citations

In the Nasal Cauterization section, the following paragraph/sentence appears: "Nasal cauterization can cause empty nose syndrome."

The citations given say that empty nose syndrome (ENS) can be caused by "submucosal cautery ... if performed in an overly aggressive manner". The first citation says (emphasis mine) "Although total turbinate excision is most frequently the cause of ENS, lesser procedures (eg, submucosal cautery [...] ) to reduce the turbinates may cause problems as well if performed in an overly aggressive manner". The third citation says more or less the same thing, I suspect taking it from the first citation since the phrasing is similar. I don't know about the second citation because I can't read French.

It sounds like the citations are only talking about turbinate reduction (by methods including cauterization), and not cauterization for the purpose of reducing nosebleeds. The section in the Wikipedia article only talks about cauterization for the purpose of nosebleeds, so the Wikipedia article implies that cauterization to reduce nosebleeds can cause ENS which is not supported by the citations.

This should be clarified. I want to Be Bold and do it myself but I would rather leave it to somebody more knowledgeable in case I am wrong - I don't want to mislead people about a medical issue. 49.180.186.95 (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]