Talk:Retinal detachment

Comment

This link "A diary of retinal detachment" was removed from the main article because it points to a personal webpage. The webpage documents the recovery of a gentleman who had surgery to fix a detached retina. The site contains photos that simulate what his vision what like before and after the surgery, a series of photos of his eye during the healing process, and a postoperative diary. The information was very useful to my family as my sister just had to have emergency surgery for this condition. (Untreated, this condition can very quickly lead to blindness.) I believe that the information could be useful to other wikipedians as well, so I propose that we at least keep the link here in the discussion page. Regards, --colibri-- 17:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)--colibri--

---

Untreated, it's fatal? Do you have some documentation on this? Joyous 00:35, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe if it makes you drive off a cliff....- Nunh-huh 00:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edits

The language is quite technical in places - we could use some links or re-writing to explain in easier English what some of the medical terms mean. The infobox is baffling - what does it do? --Wtshymanski 18:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Risks

Retinal detachment is listed as symptom or result in SLE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_lupus_erythematosus#Eyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.214.68 (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Mess prevention

I've tried to tidy up the 'Prevention' section, which had frankly become a confusing mess (is it really helpful to consider activities such as defecation and space travel alongside each other??). Any suggestions?

Goldman 2011

I see that several of the references cite a "Goldman 2011" with page numbers. However, I am unable to find any reference to such a book (I assume it to be a book with pages numbers in the 2000's) anywhere online. I am also unable to find a reference in the positive to THC causing retinal detachment other than this Wikipedia article, which is what prompted me to look for this citation in the first place. As a matter of fact, I am unable to find a SINGLE reference to THC causing or even being a risk factor for retinal detachment, in fact exactly the opposite is said by several medical institutions as shown by an easy google search. The person responsible for adding this specific item has only ever made one edit on all of wikipedia, to add this information that seems to be the opposite of what searchable information in the internet shows. Can anyone verify what this source "Goldman 2011" is, and if you have access to it, can you verify the citation for this item? As a matter of fact, I am going to go ahead and remove it pending citation verification. Iueras (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Take a look over at Amazon.com Goldman's Cecil Medicine, 24th ed..--(Loriendrew) talk 02:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loriendrew (talk • contribs)

Thanks for that, Loriendrew. Unfortunately, without more context I cannot even be certain what Goldman the citations in the article reference. There seem to be at least 3 different Goldmans that this could be referencing. I got that many different Goldmans, with PhDs in medicine, and that publish, with a 30 second search -- so I am sure there are more out there as well. Most of that is somewhat tangential anyways. I left the rest of the causes listed in the section in question in place, even though they use the same citation, because other sources support those. I am not sure where this reference to THC being a causal factor came from, as everything I could find said the opposite -- that it was beneficial in the treatment of detachment because of the well-documented lowering of intraocular pressure THC effects. All other politics and preferences aside, the lowering of IOP is a well-known and well-documented effect of THC. So I conclude that the statement I removed was included by mistake or misinterpretation, and only wished to verify against the source cited specifically. I did not log in by mistake before I made the edit, sorry about that. And I realize now that my language at the end of my first edit on this talk page was less than clear. I am not removing the reference as a whole, only the statement I questioned. Iueras (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Although my med library has the 24th edition, finding it is impossible. Probably some resident walked off with it. The 23rd edition has absolutely nothing about any causative effects. I did a full multi-database lit search and found absolutely nothing regarding THC and retinal detachment. I would say go ahead and delete the cause and reference, but make sure in your edit summary to say to look at this talk page. I initially reverted your deletion because you did not give a valid reason in the edit summary.--(Loriendrew) talk 19:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loriendrew (talk • contribs)

I checked a digital copy of the 24th edition on 21 November 2013.The claims are not in this edition. I removed it from the page. Superkuh (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Title

There are three types of retinal detachment (RD): rhegmatogenous (caused by retinal breaks), tractional (caused by pulling on the retina, usually from scar tissue), and serous (caused by leaking blood vessels under the retina from inflammation, cancer, etc). This article is mainly about rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) and should be identified as such. RRD is the most common type of RD and, therefore, is commonly just referred to as "retinal detachment. Therefore, I would not recommend changing the title. I do think clarification would be helpful. I am new to editing this site and do not know the best way to accomplish this task. Medwiki100 (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: WikiMed Nov-Dec 2024 UCSF SOM

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 November 2024 and 21 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ss444431 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Operapear.

— Assignment last updated by AminMDMA (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am a fourth-year medical student participating in the WikiProject Medicine course at UCSF. Below, I have outlined my analysis of the article, the changes I plan to make, and my proposed milestones and timeline. I would greatly appreciate any thoughts or feedback!

Article chosen: Retinal Detachment

Why this article: This article was rated of high importance with a B-Class grade and approximately 330 viewers daily. Given that retinal detachment is an emergency necessitating prompt diagnosis and treatment, it is important that clear, accurate, and high-quality information regarding the condition is outlined on the Wikipedia page.  

Analysis of article:

Lead section

• The first sentence provides a clear overview of what retinal detachment is.
• However, the lead does not summarize all of the article’s major sections.
• Additionally, it includes information that is not present otherwise in the article, such as background information about the retina and its function.

Intended changes: I will add sentences summarizing the article’s other major sections to provide a more comprehensive summary of retinal detachment in the lead section. I will also remove some of the background information regarding the retina and move it to a new “Mechanism” section.

Content and Organization

• The article addresses the diagnosis, types, prevalence, symptoms, treatment, and prevention of retinal detachment
• It does not directly address causes or mechanism of retinal detachments
• Diagnosis section does not include information regarding dilated fundus examination, which is a key part of diagnosis.

Intended changes: I will add three new sections: “Causes”, “Mechanism”, and “Prognosis”. I will rename and reorganize the sections in the following order: Classification, Signs and Symptoms, Causes, Mechanism, Diagnosis, Prevention, Treatment, Prognosis, and Epidemiology. I will further elaborate on the diagnosis section and add dilated fundus examination.

Tone and Balance

• Article appears to be written from a neutral point of view

Sources and References

• Many facts are not supported by citations, with several citations missing
• Links work
• Several of the citations are primary sources, such as retrospective and prospective studies
• There is also a lack of current sources

Intended changes: I will add citations to support each fact outlined in the article and include more secondary and current sources.

Writing quality

• The article is well-written, but can be further modified to limit medical terminology

Intended changes: Enhance readability through editing medical jargon and using the Hemingway Editor

Images

• The images provided in the article are helpful, but the images and captions can be improved to further enhance understanding of the relevant anatomy. Additionally, images can be added to the treatment section.

Intended changes: improve images, specifically lead section image and fundus photos, and captions to improve understanding of anatomy and retinal detachment. Add image to treatment section.

Talk page discussion

• Past discussions have commented on the article’s:
  • Technical jargon
  • Disorganization of the prevention section
  • Need for further clarity regarding classification of retinal detachment and emphasis that the article is primarily addressing rhegmatogenous retinal detachment

Intended changes: enhance readability by decreasing medical terminology, edit and restructure prevention section, detail classification of retinal detachment and specify that the following sections will primarily address rhegmatogenous retinal detachment

Milestones:

By 12/2/24:

• Completed and posted work plan
• Identified reliable secondary sources to reference
• Began working on writing, reorganizing, adding new sections, limiting medical jargon, and adding citations

By 12/5/24:

• Continued working on writing, reorganizing, adding new sections, limiting medical jargon, and adding citations

By 12/11/24:

• Completed writing, reorganizing, adding new sections, limiting medical jargon, and adding citations

By 12/16/24:

• Updated lead section and images
• Completed peer review

By 12/20/24:

• Addressed comments left in peer review
• Checked all citations
• Completed final review

Ss444431 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that Lattice degeneration is missing from the causes section.JenOttawa (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I also started to move things around to make it easier to improve. There is a LOT of redundancy in the symptoms section! I am done for now. Hoepfully this helps a little bit. I look forward to all your great ideas implemented to improve this article! JenOttawa (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Ss444431 (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review:

Overall Impression: Well-written article with lots of great citations! The article flows really well as a whole, and the tone is neutral imo. Considering how esoteric ophtho can be, even for people working in healthcare, you did a good job breaking down complicated terminology and procedures. You seem to have accomplished everything detailed in the workplan, so whoo!

Lead section: This is a well-done summary! It covers all the key points clearly and concisely.

Mechanism and classification: Learned a lot about different types of retinal detachment! Is there a way to add a picture/diagram depicting the different types? You explained it really well, but a picture might still be more digestible. Obvs it's very hard to find images with the perfect copyrights, so if you can't, no worries.

Signs and symptoms: Love the bullet points and explanations for each.

Causes and risk factors: I like that you separated the risk factors relating to PVD and non-PVD detachments. Are risk factors for tractional and exudative retinal detachments included here, or will you not include them since they are too rare?

Diagnosis: Nice, detailed section that explains things wonderfully. I like your linking to other wiki articles for the various imaging techniques. I think you could describe some of the main findings of these various modalities, e.g., what you would see on ultrasound or OCT. This would be useful, especially if the pictures on the page don't load for a user.

Treatment: Love all the deets for each of the surgeries. It might be useful to add something about specific complications or sequelae (if any) for each surgery. Due to the subject matter, it's inevitable that this section is one with the most medical jargon, and while I think there are certain words that can still be simplified (e.g., minimally invasive, cryotherapy can be changed to freezing, laser photocoagulation can be changed to just lasers, etc.)

Prognosis: Like this section a lot, very digestible and understandable. It seems like surgeries correct retinal detachment fairly well. Is there a difference in efficacy between the three surgeries, or are they all so phenomenal that the differences are negligible?

Prevention: Contains a lot of useful information about preventing retinal detachment. No further comment!

Epidemiology: Short but sweet. Nice job!

See also: It might be useful to link out to other eye conditions that present similarly to retinal detachment or might be on the differential diagnosis. Or, you could add a differential diagnosis blurb somewhere in the article, if you feel that'll be useful.

Operapear (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)