Jump to content

Talk:Pott's disease

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Pott disease)

[edit]

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) of the spine (Pott’s disease) is the most common site of bone infection in TB; hips and knees are also often affected. The lower thoracic and upper lumbar vertebrae are the areas of the spine most often affected.

Pathogenesis Of Pott’s Disease

Pott’s disease results from haematogenous spread of tuberculosis from other sites, often pulmonary. The infection then spreads from two adjacent vertebrae into the adjoining disc space. If only one vertebra is affected, the disc is normal, but if two are involved the intervertebral disc, which is avascular, cannot receive nutrients and collapses. The disc tissue dies and is broken down by caseation, leading to vertebral narrowing and eventually to vertebral collapse and spinal damage). A dry soft tissue mass often forms and superinfection is rare. Diagnosis of Pott’s disease Clinical

The disease progresses slowly. Signs and symptoms include: 

   * Localised back pain
   * Paravertebral swelling may be seen
   * Systemic signs and symptoms of TB may be present
   * Neurological signs may occur, leading to paraplegia.

NUMBNESS , DEFICIT IN PYRAMIDAL AND EXTRAPYRAMIDAL TRACTS THAT LEADS TO BABINSKI SIGN POSITIVE INHIBITION OF FUNCTIONS OF CORTICOSPINAL AND PARASPINAL TRACTS WHICH LEADS TO:- 1. PARAPLEGIA IN FLEXION 2. PARAPLEGIA IN EXTENSION 3. FLACCID AND SPASTIC PARAPLEGIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.106.211 (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microbiology 

   * Needle biopsy of bone or synovial tissue. Numbers of tubercle bacilli present are usually low but are pathognomonic. 
   * Acid-fast stain and culture for Mycobacterium tuberculosis, plus fungi and other pathogens, should be performed.

Imaging 

   * Spinal x-ray may not show early disease as 50% of bone mass must be lost for changes to be visible on x-ray. However, plain radiog

A Doll's House

[edit]

In a Doll's House, consumption of the spine refers to syphillis, not this disease, as it says this in the wikipedia article for a Doll's House, too. Rfts (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

needs template

[edit]

I navigated here by a template. this needs that template.

done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.77.48 (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what other disease often misdiagnosed as Pott's disease?

[edit]

My father is diagnosed and treated as such, on his spine L4 and L5, but the bone biopsy culture shows no signs of TB.

Merge suggestion

[edit]

It seems to me that Spinal Tuberculosis should be merged here. MisfitToys (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections/Cleanup Needed

[edit]

Someone's been playing a prank with this page. Under Symptoms, "accidental ass explosion" has been inserted, and the fictional Hunchback of Notre Dame's condition is said to be "caused by Robert Pott." Can someone knowledgable about the original wording correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwyrdan (talk • contribs) 19:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change (Pott Disease)

[edit]

I think that the name ought to be changed to "Pott Disease." Current naming conventions are moving towards removing the apostrophe from disease names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slevit1 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not decide in such issues. We should simply mention both. See also my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The eponym in medicine is Pott's Disease. Perior. Look at pubmed where it is ony Pott's Disease. Paget's Disease of Bone in wikipedia is just that, not Paget Disease. Not sure what "current naming conventions" you are citing. For people in medicine and history of medicine, it is only Pott's Disease
~~ Richrat4 (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another example from literature

[edit]

"The Little Locksmith," by Katherine Butler Hathaway, is an autobiographical account of her life with this affliction. It is incredibly moving. Ehpk5147 (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pott disease. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pott disease. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Date of Percivall Pott's description

[edit]

In this article, the phrase "named for British surgeon Percivall Pott who first described the symptoms in 1799" (paragraph 1) should be changed to "named for British surgeon Percivall Pott who first described the symptoms in 1779"

Pott could not have described the symptoms in 1799 because he died in 1788.

The source cited in the Wikipedia article (Tuli, "Historical Aspects of Pott's Disease") also inaccurately lists 1799.

The quote used in the Tuli article actually comes from 1779, when Pott described the disease: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Remarks_on_that_Kind_of_Palsy_of_the_Low/ZpyjygAACAAJ?hl=en 24.144.34.35 (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Epidemiology ENPH 450

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clauf20 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: ScienceRules1.

— Assignment last updated by IssaEm (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dengal3, D Chambrea Cruz, J. Chen, Future UCSF PharmD, Joshchiang296 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Schan17, MayChawPharm, Estherchen99, Gbaskovich127.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCSF SOP 2024

[edit]

Rough plan:

details of how diagnosis is conducted

expand prevention options

management - review secondary source

expand prognosis section

Improve inline citations

more clear pathophysiology section

remove unsourced information

fix history section

more detailed treatment/management

add signs and symptoms Dengal3 (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an update on the editing activity and proposed edits I will be targeting for the remaining time on this project - Josh
Most edits have been done with a focus on the Management section. Currently have completed the surgical intervention section with a deeper dive on some of the types of procedures along with what can be done in pediatrics. Chemotherapy section has been mostly completed.
Edits that I will be focusing on in the following week will be primarily done in the broad management section to give a brief overview on how the disease is managed, the usage of immobilization in therapy, and cure vs. management of disease. Additional edits may be done to elaborate on the possible use of chemotherapeutics in pediatrics, antibiotics in the eradication of disease, and analgesics/instrumentation in managing pain and function. Joshchiang296 (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCSF SOP 2024 Peer Review

[edit]

The group's edits improve the article by providing additional information that aids in the understanding of the topics discussed. Expanding on various topics within the article including pathogenesis, medical interventions, etc., helps to paint a more clear picture surrounding Pott's disease. The lead's section is brief yet descriptive, without over-explaining concepts. All content is relevant to the topic with more recent references. The history section would be more useful in the context of the article if used to describe the history of the disease rather than individuals who previously were known to have the illness. The added content is well-written and appropriate.

Proposed goals are currently in progress. Prevention, pathophysiology, and prognosis were all expanded upon as proposed. Editing the history section was proposed. However, it is unclear what changes they intended to make. Suggestions for the history section were mentioned above.

The draft has a neutral point of view. All material is presented from an unbiased standpoint with an informative tone. There are no perceivable sides being biased throughout the article. Schan17 (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
Yes the group expanded on the existing sections and added more sections to make the article easier to read with clearer segmentation. Updated information and references were added to help people have better and more complete understanding of Pott’s Disease. The lead section was well-written containing concise descriptions of the disease and brief introduction of other sections. The only section that was a little bit confusing is the history section. This section didn’t describe the history of how Pott’s disease was discovered and how people used to think about them or treat them. Instead, it listed many historical cases of the disease. So I would recommend to change the title of the section.
Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
Yes the group achieved many part of its goal for improvement from my point of view by expanding the management/treatment section, make pathophysiology section more clear, improve citations, and remove unsourced information. The prognosis, prevention, and history sections may need more work.
Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?
Yes, I checked the reference and they are all creditable and freely available sources. Estherchen99 (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?
The draft submission is successful in maintaining a neutral point of view throughout the article. There are no instances of biased opinions or views.
Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
Most of the group's goals have been achieved. Diagnosis details have been fleshed out within the article, along with expanded prevention options and management. The signs and symptoms still need to be added, unless the group's goal was to just put it into the medical info box, in which case this has been achieved. The group mentioned fixing the history section but I am unsure as to what that entails. Possibly organizing the history section, or adding to it, but it does not look as though either of those have been done just yet. Overall the group achieved most of their goals for this article's improvement.
Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?
I believe all of the edits have been formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. The edits all have good paraphrasing as well as effective comments describing the nature of each edit. The documentation of edits has been done well. Gbaskovich127 (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
The group's edits significantly enhance the article as specified in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework" since the article is well-written. The edits are written in a clear, succinct, and intelligible manner, with proper spelling and punctuation. The article also adheres to the Manual of Style criteria for arrangements.
Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
The group has achieved its overall goals for improvement since the article covers a wide range of topics. The article highlights the major points of the issue without going into needless detail or digressions. It is factually correct and verifiable since it uses credible sources, includes inline citations, and identifies all references. One improvement that can be done is by adding more images or media to enhance the visual.
Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?
The edits reflect language that supports DEI or “diversity, equity, and inclusion” because the article uses a neutral tone. The edits reflect opinions honestly and objectively, giving equal weight to each. The article is also stable in that it does not change dramatically as a result of content disputes. MayChawPharm (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCSF SOP 2024 - Editing Plan/Progress by Josh

[edit]

Most edits have been done with a focus on the Management section. Currently have completed the surgical intervention section with a deeper dive on some of the types of procedures along with what can be done in pediatrics. Chemotherapy section has been mostly completed.

Edits that I will be focusing on in the following week will be primarily done in the broad management section to give a brief overview on how the disease is managed, the usage of immobilization in therapy, and cure vs. management of disease. Additional edits may be done to elaborate on the possible use of chemotherapeutics in pediatrics, antibiotics in the eradication of disease, and analgesics/instrumentation in managing pain and function. Joshchiang296 (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pott%27s_disease&oldid=1237631128"