Talk:Esophagus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Addition

I added "During swallowing food passes from the mouth through the pharynx into the esophagus and travels via peristalsis to the stomach." because it links the swallowing (deglutition) article, pharynx and three parts naso, oro, laryngopharynx, and perstalsis where they have a nice animation of esophagus. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

I think someone needs to fix it... Lagomen (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Gullet

Why does "gullet" redirect here? It needs to be explained. 131.116.254.198 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2011 (CUT)

Gullet is simply another less formal name for the esophagi... Christopher (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Esophageal Sphincters

The following discussion 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.

---

I wonder if we cosmos should merge in the upper esophageal sphincter and cardia articles into this section. I made some changes to the paragraph on the gastroesophageal junction, as that paragraph had several large issues, and in doing so I realized that both cardia, and the upper esophageal sphincter have their own mediocre pages. I feel that a much better version could be created that combined all three. However, given that the cardia is actually anatomically part of the stomach, I wonder if that should not be treated separately and not included here? The lower esophageal sphincter is slightly superior to the cardia anyway.

Any thoughts?

• Support I totally agree. Not synonymous by any stretch but related enough to warrant finding them together would be beneficial. Puppylover1992 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There is certainly room for much merging within anatomical articles, but I don't support this merge because I feel these are two separate structures, one is a muscle and one is part of the digestive system, and it is difficult to reconcile these in a single article. I feel that the article on oesophagus could be expanded to a significant length that the sphincter, if merged, would have to be branched again in the future anyway. --LT910001 (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Support easier to have this in one place, and better for readers. --LT910001 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have completed the merge with upper esophageal sphincter and lower had already been merged (not by me). --LT910001 (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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.

Clinical significance section

Hiatus hernia is quite commons and deserves a mention. Why not organize the section by symptoms; ie blockage (dysphagia), dyspepsia, bleeding, and so on? Snowman (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to describe the primary pathologies that affect the esophagus. However, it is a very reasonable suggestion to add a 'symptoms' subsection, which I will do shortly. --LT910001 (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits

I have:--LT910001 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Replaced "blockage" with "constriction" as there is no mention of blockage in the text. LT910001 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You obviously missed this "When severe, esophageal cancer may eventually cause obstruction of the oesophagus, ...". Snowman (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Removed "NMR scan" and replaced it with "CT scan" as this is supported in-text LT910001 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess that the text will need to be updated to include NMR probably for investigating cancer. Snowman (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Revised the layout per the recommended layout at WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy LT910001 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. There are may right ways of doing this. Sometimes it may be necessary to adapt the format to make it more suitable for a particular topic. Did you mean to remove the section on malformations? Snowman (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I have regrouped the diseases, because the congenital malformations are diseases as well. Snowman (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Reverted your removal of the image per WP:BRD. This image is aesthetically pleasing and illustrates the epithelia of the esophagus, and I think does a better job of engaging lay readers than other images. I see no reason why we shouldn't include it in this article. LT910001 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It is actually not very pleasing, because it is such a small piece and it looks like it is cut slightly obliquely. Hence, I think putting this forward as an ideal biopsy is somewhat misleading. You might have to take my word for this. I would suggest a more conventional image. Snowman (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

On my screen the double image consists of two different sized images, which is not artistic. This needs fixing. Snowman (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)