Talk:Lymphatic system/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Picture

This article would be much better with a picture of the lymphatic system. Mikebar (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Ashcraft for the picture! Mikebar (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

When was the lymphatic system discovered. Had its existance been known about within Chinese medicine for many centuries before its "discovery" by Western medicine?

>No, Chinese Medicine has no concept of a LS...not literally, anatomically or physiologically.75.80.76.56 02:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Can someone plz mention that the lymphatic system and the immune system aren't the same. I would have done it myself but I am noob here. and keep up the good work62.150.221.230 11:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)evox777[reply]

This phrase: "Lymph movement occurs slowly with low pressure due to peristalsis..." Is unclear because it doesn't refer to any anatomical structure. Peristalsis of what? The digestive tract? That's probably what he meant but it reads like he means peristalsis within the lymphatic vessels which, AFAIK, does not happen.75.80.76.56 02:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the word "heart" at the end of the very first sentence is in error. Can someone verify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tskillman (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chyle

Wouldn't the vitamins and glucose be mixed in with the fat? Don't these substances pass freely everwhere in the body, discounting the blood brain barriers?

It depends on the vitamin. Some vitamins are fat-soluble, some aren't.75.80.76.56 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The small intestine is richly supplied with lymphatics. How could the body keep all the nutrients in the small intestine out of the lymph system? It doesn't seem possible.--McDogm 17:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

>First, it would be neither possible nor necessary to keep all the nutrients in the small intestine. Second, there are many types of 'nutrients' to pass thru the intestinal wall, just as there many waste products and non-nutrients that shouldn't pass thru the intestinal wall.....how the process works in either depends on the substance in question. Third, realize that lymph (and everything in it that is not consumed by a cell) shortly makes its way back into general (blood) circulation anyway....it's not as if once in the LS, it's no longer available to cells. To the contrary.75.80.76.56 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lymphatic system is perfectly coexistent with the circulatory system. How does the body select for transmission of minerals and vitamins to the portal circulatory system over the lymphatic system in the tissues of the small intestines?--McDogm 12:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

>The body doesn't select. The process depends on the specific nutrient in question.75.80.76.56 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the portal venous system exist if the lymphatics take all the nutrients from the gut? Why don't the intestines have veins that drain to the vena cava instead of to the liver? Sure, some stuff ends up in the chyle but definitely not everything and certainly not most. Most of the fats end up in the lymph but not the rest. They go straight to the liver. This I remember quite strongly from my physiology lectures. A quick Googling gives [1], [2] and, significantly, Lipid absorption. Note that they say that only lipids get absorbed straight to the lymph and everything else goes to the portal venous system. Alex.tan 01:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

>The liver is a primary site of chemical synthesis and filtration for the whole body. It makes sense for blood and nutrients to go straight from the gut to the liver for 'processing', if you will. Toxins and wastes can also be absorbed by the veins that drain the intestines, another reason to shunt that blood directly to the liver instead of into general circulation where it could do harm.75.80.76.56 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manipulative therapy

Reverted edit on manipulative therapy as there is no evidence that lymph flowing can be felt ... text deleted here:

Some physical therapists or other practitioners of manipulative therapy can perform a "lymphatic release" by massaging areas of the body where lymph is found to be flowing irregularly. Such releases are intended to unblock poorly circulating lymph, though poor circulation is often indicative of systemic bodily malaise not soluble through massage alone. (It is interesting to note that lymph circulation can be felt in much the same way that one feels air entering and exiting the lungs, though lymph usually cycles at a slower rate—a few times per minute—and is at first often hard for people to detect in themselves without some guidance.)

Alex.tan 14:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Awwww... :(   Very quick on the draw there buddy. No evidence? Did you look? The comment in question sure could have been better placed in the article, but you don't think there should be some discussion of manual lymph drainage? I'm not a physician, but the great volume of work being done in this area warrants at least a note and then expansion. Separating the comment on feeling lymph from treating lymphedema with massage, I think there's no problem mentioning the latter.
  • For highly commercialized, somewhat suspect material on this, see the IAHE.
  • For evidence of support for the idea of "manual lymph drainage" within the community of lymphologists, see the International Society of Lymphology (Section IV.A.1., Non-Operative Treatment) or a list of references at the British Lymphology Society.
  • Layperson-friendly books (legit or not) on the topic: 1, 2, ...
  • There are even schools based on this stuff: 1...
Again, I'm not a physician, I don't have the background to scope out the legitimacy of these things quickly, but if there were a cult of doctors and tens or hundreds of thousands of people convinced of certain ways of treating lymphedema and so on, I think it would warrant mention in the article. Likewise with manual lymph drainage. —Tarnas 00:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The onus of proof always lies on the person making the wild claim, not the person who does not believe them. None of the links you provided sound anything like good evidence. If you find a good quality unbiased, well-researched article that supports your position, I'd like to read it. Alex.tan 01:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Again, dropping the comment about feeling lymph (you'll feel it one day... :)  ha!), the actual practice of manual lymph drainage or using massage to alter the lymphatic system is common enough. The list of references above is not meant to prove the scientific worth of the practice, but to prove its existence and therefore its being noteworthy. Again, if there were a popular video game all about the lymphatic system, it should be mentioned, and similarly a practice known to and used by many doctors and therapists, regardless of its viability, should be noted because it's topical. Is there some kind of WP standard prohibiting this? There seem to be policies for the inclusion I'm discussing (1 (obvious idea though dated), 2).
The original comment doesn't claim or require scientific viability: Some physical therapists or other practitioners of manipulative therapy can perform a "lymphatic release" by massaging areas of the body where lymph is found to be flowing irregularly. Such releases are intended to unblock poorly circulating lymph, though poor circulation is often indicative of systemic bodily malaise not soluble through massage alone. A note should be made that this is a common healing practice, not a scientifically proven regimen. Since there's no "Treatment of disorders" section in this article maybe I should move this comment to lymphedema. —Tarnas 00:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, your edit requires verifiability - it states that: 1. some people can perform a lymphatic release and 2. that the movement of lymph can be felt. It does not state that this is an alternative health claim not supported by evidence or research. Just because lots of people believe in it does not make it correct. An unverifiable claim should be stated as such and not presented as if it were the truth. It does not matter which article you insert it in, unless you have some reasonable evidence to back up this claim, it must be phrased as an unverifiable claim. Alex.tan 01:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Come on, I just said that the "lymph can be felt" comment is dropped. The new note would read: Some physical therapists or other practitioners of manipulative therapy can perform what is known as a "lymphatic release" or "manual lymph drainage" by massaging areas of the body where lymph is found to be flowing irregularly. Such releases are intended to unblock poorly circulating lymph, especially in the management of lymphedema, though this is only a common practice and not widely accepted as a scientifically proven regimen for treatment of the lymphatic system. There's no claim here that the practice is scientifically proven/accepted, and the references I cited above demonstrate that such a practice is known and supported by legitimate lymphologists, massage therapists, and crackpot docs alike. Here's more evidence (1, 2) demonstrating that what I'm talking about is verifiable in the WP sense.
     Given the extensive literature cited about manual lymph drainage, I'm led to belive that it is a scientifically proven practice, that to say otherwise is false, though I don't have access to many of the sources cited in the documents I cite here and above so I can't review that claim right now. You can search PubMed for more evidence that this is a common enough topic of scientific inquiry, that it is a used practice, and that it is therefore notable. There's a policy for dealing with this exact case: it seems like you don't want a note to be made of "manual lymph drainage" simply because you haven't heard of it or don't think it works, but neither of those reasons matter given the documentation I've provided. To quote, Just because something is not an accepted scientific fact, as determined by the prevailing scientific consensus, does not mean that it should not be reported and referenced in Wikipedia. —Tarnas 23:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allrighty. To settle the issue, I took the time and liberty to do a medline search and I came up with this recent Cochrane review: PMID 15495042. The quotable quote in their results is: "and that MLD provided no extra benefit at any point during the trial". Again, my only problem with your original edit was that it sounded like it was providing gospel truth which it isn't. I think the only fair word to use is to say that practitioners of manipulative therapy claim to be able to release lymph flow. Alex.tan 04:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, let's compromise on that caveat, is the following text acceptable to you?

Some physical therapists or other practitioners of manipulative therapy are trained to perform what is known as a "lymphatic release" or "manual lymph drainage" by massaging areas of the body where lymph is found to be flowing irregularly. Such releases are intended to unblock poorly circulating lymph, especially in the management of lymphedema, though these therapies are only common practices and not widely accepted as effective, scientifically proven methods for treatment of the lymphatic system.

These therapists do preform MLD, are trained to do it, they don't simply claim to do it, but like a tarot card reader there's no claim here that the routine is effective. This is prominently noted. Okay?
But second of all, give me a break, this link you provide (PMID 15495042) goes to a study where the test groups were small, the experiments not repeated, drop-out rates high in two test groups, and ultimately the entire study was reviewed as follows: "All three trials have their limitations and have yet to be replicated, so their results must be viewed with caution. There is a clear need for well-designed, randomised trials of the whole range of physical therapies if the best approach to managing lymphoedema is to be determined." The data collection section makes this even more explicit: "DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two blinded reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the poor quality of the trials." [Emphasis added.] This study you're linking to does nothing to prove or disprove MLD, and does not settle this issue of MLD's worth at all... if anything it simply reenforces the fact that MLD is a notable topic of scientific inquiry, and that you are taking quotes (the "quotable quote", "and that MLD provided no extra benefit at any point during the trial") seriously out of context. —Tarnas 04:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your final edit sounds good. However, if you were not already aware, Cochrane reviews are far from bunk - they are meta-reviews done of massive numbers of articles by trained professionals. Read the full text of the article. They found 195 articles and cut the list down to 10 because the other 185 were not randomised, controlled trials. Of the remaining ten, they limited their meta-analysis to three articles because they found the other studies to be insufficiently well performed (not randomised control, duration not long enough, not enough participants or whatever other reason). A Cochrane review finding is usually the best available evidence available to date precisely because they have gone to the trouble to search through all the articles and sifted out the ones worth reading. If a current Cochrane review finds that MLD provides no added benefit, there is currently no good evidence to show that MLD does provide a benefit. And that's the point - nobody has done a randomised, controlled trial that shows that MLD provides a benefit over bandaging; all trials so far that attempted to prove MLD provides a benefit are of poor quality. Ask any credible doctor about what a Cochrane review means if you don't believe me. Alex.tan 15:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Alright, cool. Maybe we should write Cochrane review. —Tarnas 18:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AWESOME

This web page is so cool. But you guys could make your writing a little bigger in size. Well need more pics and yah. You guys put a lot of thinking into it and well good job!! Well hopefully you have a nice internet going with others!! >:( MAD!!

The introduction

The terms lymphatic system and immune system are NOT used interchangeably. The lymphatic system is from WHERE the immune system 1. obtains new immune cells and 2.(mostly) performs it's functions, but they are not the same thing. The lymphatic system is a part of the immune system. --DO11.10 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education

Why do we not learn about this system in elementary school like most other body systems? It just doesn't make sense. Nate | Talk Esperanza! 02:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that was a disgusting pic so i just had to delete it!!! rdsess

Picture issues

I noticed that the picture does not meet the copyright criteria mentioned under the pictures page. Just a thought.

Bonzi77 02:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind changing the image, but I'm not sure what part of the copyright criteria the image doesn't meet. I would appreciate it if you would develop your thought a little more. Any input from other editor's is welcome.3dscience 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know for sure, but I would guess that Bonzi77 is confused about the attribution part. The Image:3DScience lymphatic system.jpg license says: Attribution must appear super-imposed on the image itself, fully legible when at the full published resolution. But there is no attribution visible on the image as it appears in the article. Just a guess though??--DO11.10 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe...Yeah. DO11 is right in thinking that I meant the attribution part. The template says that if it's in Wikimedia it's ok, but it's the text under "file history" that confuses me. Bonzi77 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article for "lymph"

I've landed on this page after a search for term "lymph". It seems strange that there is no article for the word "lymph" --Dibbe 16:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lymphoid Organs

I think it would be good if someone separated the organs into primary and secondary. (Dan 02:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

So what is lymph?

Lymph redirects here, but this article lacks a clear articulation of what lymph (i.e. the fluid) consists of. Dragons flight (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MCOTW agenda

Quick outline of what i've noticed immediately about the article.

  • Bullet points/numbered points should be turned into paragraphs written in full prose.
  • Explain scientific jargon in simpler terms e.g. peristalsis, interstitial fluid etc.
  • Collaborate with WikiProject Anatomy regarding article structuring and essential features.

Please feel free to add things as we go along. I'll try to! — CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 12:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Introduction needs reworking:
  • Bit on alternate definition(lymphocytes) maybe should be moved. Needs a source. Does that definition imply blood if a part of the lymph system.
  • Well, it's not exactly an alternate definition. It's how the "Gray's anatomy" 35th edition (1973) defines it. Of course, it's definition is much longer (almost half a page), which in great parts also deals with the definition of the reticuloendothelial system. You're very right that this definition thus would include the vascular system, too, which I've not included. I think the introduction will require rewording, indeed. But, the rationale of this definition is that it then also includes all the lymphoid tissue. —KetanPanchaltaLK 05:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in general the introduction feels quite scrappy and poorly explained. I'll try be bold and make some changes feel free to do the same.
  • We also need to find some solid sources of information. It would be nice if you could mention what sources of information your using (preferably free) so we can collaborate.

Ziphon (ALLears) 12:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at the intro. It will probably have to be rewritten again if there are substantial changes to the topics covered in the article. Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To explain in simple words and at the right place in the article that blood does not come directly in contact with the tissues, but the interstitial fluid does. And, that the lymph is formed from this interstitial fluid. —KetanPanchaltaLK 05:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Doing... I've had a crack at it. Most of what I've done is based on guyton. There's more work to be done on it. Ziphon (ALLears) 12:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, it would also be nice if someone worked on our pathetic little lymph article. Dragons flight (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dragon's flight! The original suggestion for MCOTW was "Lymphatic system and related articles". So, obviously, all the related articles fall within the scope. I'm right now trying to improve this article, which will serve as the anchor point for the whole lymphatic system, and the rest can be expanded by little more effort than copy+pasting. —KetanPanchaltaLK 15:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list of questions

Most of this comes from information that is currently only covered in the lead and should be covered at greater depth within the article, or just questions that come to mind reading it.

  • 1. What animals have or do not have this system and what should this article cover? (vertebrates, mammals, primates, etc...)
  • 2. A "network of conduits" is mentioned in the lead. Does it link all parts of the body? (Any analogies to blood-brain barrier, for example.)
    • It does not connect all the parts with each other, but is present in almost all the parts of the body. I'm not sure if I added the term network, but can still justify its usage as it means that the conduits where present act as networks, meaning they are inteconnected (at least at the tissue level). —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. Some of the discussion on the talk page here suggests that there are varying definitions of what is and is not included in the lymphatic system. In particular, the lead talks about inclusion of the digestive system. What is the most common definition for what is included in the system, and if there are other significant definitions, how do they vary?
    • Lymphatic system is a part of both the immune system and the circulatory system. Actually, the conduits perform the circulation (transport of fluid and solutes) and the lymphoid tissue including lymph nodes) the the immune function (filtration, mounting immune response, etc.). That's why I'd tried to keep these two components separate in the lead. —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. The lead talks about interactions between blood and the interstitial fluid. Where and how does this occur? (assuming at the capillaries, but is there a molecular pump or is it just diffusion)?
    • It is diffusion, hydrostatic pressure for formation of lymph and oncotic pressure, suction action of inspiration (inhalation), muscle contraction for return of ICF as well as lymph. —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. Is there a difference between lymph and interstitial fluid or is it two names for the same fluid depending on where it is in the body?
    • I'll have to find that out. But, this is what my belief is: the ICF composition tends to stay fairly constant in all the tissues, whereas, the lymph composition depends upon which tissue it is draining (e.g., chyle is lymph formed from the small intestines) and which portion of the lymphatic system it is in (lymph gets richer in lymphocytes as it passes through more and more lymph nodes). —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6. What happens when the lymphatic system is blocked, and does this happen with any regularity? (i.e. analogies to DVT, atherosclerois, etc...)
  • 7. Compare and contrast the structure of the lymphatic system with the circulatory system: Are there great vessels and other significant conduits or are they all pretty uniform?
    • They're not uniform. A section requires to be added. In general, the lymphatics get bigger as they move away from the tissues and towards the subclavian vein (somewhat like the circulatory system). —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8. What do the lymph nodes do in the system?
    • "What do the lymph nodes (and lymphoid tissue) do in the system?"Another section. —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9. What do the spleen, thymus, tonsils and other organs do in the system?
  • 10. It was described in 1651 as the source of white blood cells. When were the other functions of the system first described?
    • No source yet. Somehow the lymphatic system has been a very neglected topic in the medical curriculum and it's difficult to get sources on the net, too. —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11. Are there any significant new discoveries or areas of active research?
  • 12. What is the consequence of balancing interstitial fluid and how does the system know what level is "right"?
    • The most important factor is the composition of blood. It determines the composition of ICF and lymph. —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13. Is chyle being taken away from the cells or to the cells or both, and why does this matter?
    • It (with all the absorbed fat it carries) is being taken away from the intestinal cells into the blood. —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14. Is the lymphatic system a component of the immune system, is the immune system a component of the lymphatic system, or do they have overlapping areas of activity?
  • 15. What are the most significant diseases of the lymphatic system? (either by morbidity or mortality)
  • 16. The lead talks about lymph nodes trapping and destroying cancer cells. How does this work? (partially overlaps with question #8)
    • This works on the concept that the lymph travels very slowly through the lymphoid tissue, so the lymphocytes there get an opportunity to attack the cancer cells. —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17. Removal of tonsils and spleen are not unusual surgical procedures. How does removing them affect the functions of this system?
    • Removal of spleen (splenectomy) has concequences—patients require to be immunized against capsulated bacteria like Streptococcus pneumoniae. Tonsillectomy may be does not have any consequence, as unlike the spleen, tonsils are not unique in their function or location (their are other types of tonsils located in the upper digestive system--pharynx, too that are not removed in a typical tonsillectomy). —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, you know the answers to most of the above questions still have answered them so that you may expand the article in the meantime. This list of issues is very helpful, and can serve as a guide to what major work requires to be done on the article (apart from the agenda above). —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just some things to chew over on article content. Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I'm adding a list of sources that could be useful

Not all of them are directly related to the matter that we want but there is some piecemeal information. I've tried to organize the sources in order of possible utility, but I recommend they all be surveyed once for their utility.

—KetanPanchaltaLK 10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've started looking at them and they have useful information. These are some articles I found:

  1. Development of the lymphatic vascular system: A mystery unravels
  2. Lymphatics at the crossroads of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis

The first article's introduction may be useful. The 2nd one is not as useful.

Ziphon (ALLears) 05:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1651

Can anyone confirm that 1651 citation for the first description of the lymphatic system as the source of white blood cells? Seems awfully early. Thanks! 71.232.27.225 (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Tom[reply]

There's a source given later in the article (history section), and the Olaus Rudbeck article also gives him the credit and cites it. It says he first presented it in early 1652, which is plausible if he discovered it in 1651. SDY (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an citation to that statement in the introduction. Ziphon (ALLears) 05:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the source I've cited above (Mesenteric Lymph: The Bridge to Future Management of Critical Illness) it seems the recognition of the lymphatic system was even earlier! 300 BC to be specific. It also attributes time around middle seventeenth century as that of discoveries regarding the lymphatic vessels. —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature of lymphatics

There's a lot of confusion regarding the naming of various kind of vessels. However, I could make out a certain pattern:

  • Vessels specializing in simple collection of fluid to form lymph are called:
    • Lymph/lymphatic capillaries
    • Prelymphatics
    • Initial lymphatics. These all possess both the kind of valves, and do 'not possess smooth muscles.
  • Vessels specializing in further propulsion of lymph:
    • Lymph/lymph vessels
    • Contractile vessels
    • Collecting vessels are first muscularized vessels that collect lymph directly from the capillaries and transport it to the afferent vessels. These all possess only one system of valves--the semilunar ones that restrict the backflow of lymph within the lumen.

So while adding any info please try to adhere to the above scheme. If some one could get hold of some source that makes the nomenclature clearer, that would be very nice.

Also, while browsing, I came across a very important but new concept of lymphangion--the segment of any lymphatic that lies between two semilunar valves. It is the fuctional unit of any lymphatic.Optimal Lymphatic Vessel Structure It would be nice if some one could incorporate this piece of information into the article and also expand the section on history.

Now, I feel we're finally well poised to expand the article with all the required resources.

Remember: Ideally, we're also supposed to add the information from this article into the related articles like that of lymph, lymph capillary, lymph vessels, etc.

—KetanPanchaltaLK 10:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

Immunology’s first priority dispute—An account of the 17th-century Rudbeck–Bartholin feud

This is a very good article for the history section. Unfortunately it is not free but I have access to it. If anyone is intersted in doing some work on the history section tell me. Ziphon (ALLears) 08:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For history, may be you should see this article: Mesenteric Lymph: The Bridge to Future Management of Critical Illness. Actually, I'm very actively involved in the lymphatic system article right now, but most of my time is going into making an image of lymph node that could show the concept of subcapsular sinus. So, it'd be nice if you could work on the section on history. And, since, we have only 4 days before the MCOTW changes, we'll have to start working on other related articles, too like lymph node, lymph capillary, etc. —KetanPanchaltaLK 11:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ziphon, I think your problem is solved :-) —KetanPanchaltaLK 12:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Another source
      2. [3]
      1. [4]
      2. Manual Techniques Addressing the Lymphatic System: Origins and Development
      3. Pretty good source for history of the lymphatic system
Hope these sources help.
  •  Doing... History section. BTW, great work on the article's other sections so far :) Ziphon (ALLears) 12:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Well, there was an edit conflict, and I have added some info of my own. Thanks for your contributions. It'd be nice it you could add some info on disorders of the immune system, and some specific findings in various kinds of lymphadenopathies (shotty lymph nodes, matted lymph nodes, etc.). I've added quite a bit of info on the lymph node article, and added an image, too. Now, we should try to concentrate of the lymph article, which is a miserable stub. I might not be able to make many contributions tomorrow, though. Take care. —KetanPanchaltaLK 15:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of the Lymphatic System

Forgive me if I've got this entirely wrong but I came to this article for the express pupose of finding an overview of the purpose of the lymphatic system (the usual mind numbing grandchild's question) and where it fits in the evolution of man. If either of these two subjects were covered I either didn't understand them or just plain missed them. Do such answers belong here?

In other words I accept that the article covers in some detail what the lymphatic system does, but why? Why is it a largely separate sytem?Drg40 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absorption of fats

Dear Wikipedia contribuitors,


please receive a respectful greeting. I'd like to call your attention to the section about the functions of the lymphatic system. There is a line reading

"it absorbs and transports fatty acids and fats as chyle from the circulatory system."


I think it should read

"it absorbs fatty acids and other lipids through the lacteals in the villi of the small intestine and transports them as chyle."


Support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacteals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chyle


Please, make your comments about this so we can get to an agreement.

Thank you so much.


George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lymphatic vs. Lymphoid: Problems in Nomenclature and Scope of the Article

I want to raise the problem of nomenclature in this article. It is related with the double function of the lymphatic/lymphoid system. In fact we have two systems (circulatory and immune) in this article that overlap with each other, but not completely, so it is hard to say we have one system.

(1) The circulatory system (lymphatic) for the lymph comprise the "lymphatic" vessels and lymph nodes, but, strictly speaking, the spleen, thymus, tonsils, and appendix should not belong there.
(2) The immune aspect should include all lymphocyte-bearing tissues (lymphoid) and their functions, but has nothing to do with interstitial fluid drainage, nor lymph and fat transportation.
So discussing these disparate aspects in the same article may seem awkward, but what can we do? Forking them into two separate articles would also be awkward, because these two systems have such a great overlap. Any comments?

(P.S.: "Lymphatic" may be used for both the circulatory and immunological components of the system, while "lymphoid" is more specific to the immunological component. You can talk about "lymphatic vessels" but never "lymphoid vessels". This is why I have moved the article back to "Lymphatic system", because this is a more general and common term than "Lymphoid system" (by 26:1 ratio in a Google test).) --HYC (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I think Lymphoid and Lymphatic system cover the same ground. As an adjective, Lymphoid is an awkward subject for an article. Since Wikipedia articles are about things, not words, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery. The merge shouldn't be too hard, since the Lymphoid article is so short. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 23:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Uncontested merge. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 00:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about math in introductory paragraph

I'm a casual wikipedia reader who was confused by the following text:

The circulatory system processes an average of 20 liters of blood per day through capillary filtration which removes plasma while leaving the blood cells. Roughly 28 liters per day of that gets reabsorbed directly into the blood vessels. The primary function of the lymph system is to provide an accessory route for these excess 3 liters per day to get returned to the blood.

The first two sentences don't make sense to me, because 28 > 20. How can 28 liters per day of 20 liters get reabsorbed? I might just be dense, but this doesn't compute. In addition, I don't understand where the "excess 3 liters" come from. 28 - 20 = 8. The numbers are backwards, *and* the difference is wrong.

--Alexandermiller (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved from article

I have moved the following content from the article here:

Present research has found clues about a lymphatico-venous communication. In mammals, lymphatico-venous communications other than those at the base of the neck are not easy to demonstrate, but described in some experiments.[1]

The specialists observed that the pulmonary complications following lymphangiography (a test which utilizes X ray technology, along with the injection of a contrast agent, to view lymphatic circulation and lymph nodes for diagnostic purposes) are more often severe in patients with lymphatic obstruction. In these cases, the contrast medium is thought to reach the vascular system via lymphovenous communications which shunt the material directly into the venous stream, bypassing those lymph nodes distal to the communications,[2] Because less contrast agent is absorbed in lymph nodes, a greater portion of the injected volume passes into the vascular system. Since pulmonary complications are related to the amount of medium reaching the lungs area, the early recognition of lymphovenous communications is a great significance to the lymphangiographer.[2] Another "hint" in proving a lymph-vein communication is offered by a Robert F Dunn experiment. The passage of radioactively tagged tracers, injected at elevated pressure, through the lymph node-venous communications coincides with the increased pressures of injection and subsequent nodal palpation in dogs. The passage of iodinated I 125 serum albumen (ISA) indicates that direct lymph node-venous communications are present, whereas passage of nucleated erythrocytes requires a communication structure the size of a capillary or larger.[3] Moreover, the evidence suggest that in mammals under normal conditions, most of the lymph is returned to the blood stream through the lymphatico-venous communications at the base of the neck. When the thoracic duct-venous communication is blocked, however, the resultant raised intralymphatic pressure will usually cause other normal non-functioning communications to open and thereby allow the return of lymph to the blood stream.[1]

I have moved it because I find the content confusing and not relevant. It relies on very old sources, some of which are primarily, and I am confused as to what it is saying so I'm not able to search further. If the section is implying that lymph vessels directly communicate with veins, then it lacks reliable sources to prove this. If the section is implying that when lymph vessels are blocked there are other ways fluid can drain, that can be briefly said and doesn't need a long explanation. Maybe other users can contribute or clarify? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Schwartz, Colin; Werthessen, N; Wolf, S (1981) [1931]. "The Lymphatic Circulation". Structure and Function of Circulation, vol 2 (Fifth ed.). New York: Plenum Press. pp. 502–503.
  2. ^ a b Farrel, Walter (October 1966). "Lymphangiographic Demonstration of Lymphovenous Communication After Radiotherapy in Hodgkin's Disease,". Journal of radiological Society of North America. Retrieved 23 April 2011. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  3. ^ Robert F Dunn; Ronald W Strahan; Paul H Ward (1973). "Lymph Node-Venous Communications". Lymph Node-Venous Communication. Arch Otolaringology. Retrieved 23 April 2011.

Proposed merge with Lymphatic system nursing assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result was merge. Note that no content seemed suitable for inclusion in Lymphatic system itself, though sentences were inserted into Popliteal lymph nodes and Axillary lymph nodes. Basie (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant overlap of content; content can be readily merged into 'examination' subsection Tom (LT) (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Further, significant portions are copy/pasted from other web resources (compare). The whole thing is written like an instruction manual. Unless there is any objection in the next few days I'll go ahead and do a quick pass through for anything useful/appropriate and merge it into Lymphatic system. Cheers, Basie (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll start looking for material to move out of Lymphatic system nursing assessment. Actually I think the non-guidebook portions of the subject are fairly well covered elsewhere, but I'll try not to simply delete the article. Basie (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of the appendix portion

I recently added a portion about the Appendix and how it contains mostly if not all lymph tissue. Someone removed it and I would just like to know why they removed my addition. I added this

One other area that contains a lot of lymphoid tissue is the appendix. The appendix is thought to be made up of almost all lymphoid tissue. A scientist named Joseph Ransohoff simply stated that “the entire mucous membrane of the appendix is nothing but a lymph gland spread out.” The appendix has been compared to the tonsils in the amount of lymph tissue present. In the early 1900s the appendix was found to contain a lot of gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) and after the discovery of this tissue, it was proposed that the appendix had an immune function. Whether the appendix is an immune organ is still debatable but regardless, the appendix consists of lymphoid tissue.

It was edited a few times for slight word changes which is fine but I just want to know what was wrong with it to have it completely removed. Thanks. Martin.2489 (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, thanks for creating an account. Wikipedia's quite complicated and it takes a while to get to grips with its ins and outs. I removed the content for a few reasons. First, it was stated that "The appendix is thought to be made up of almost all lymphoid tissue". Like the gastrointestinal tract, the appendix has a gastrointestinal wall that surely must constitute the majority of its mass. Secondly, we try not to base our descriptions off what an individual scientist has said, but off reliable sources. These are recent, secondary sources. That leads me to the third reason. For a statement like this, sources should be at least in the last 10 years. A textbook from 1890 will not reflect the findings of modern science.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lymphatic system. 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:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 20:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Lymphatic_system/Archive_1"