Talk:Lichen sclerosus

Isn't
Isn't it trivial that a disease that in men usually affects the foreskin is rare in circumcised men, who don't have one? Readers should think carefully what it means to (more or less) promote removal of everything that can become affected by a disease. There is no mentioning of a chirurgical treatment for women. Also the usual relation to penile cancer is largely exaggerated; looking around on the Internet with Google it seems that there are hardly reliable data available for this claim. To me this seems an unnecessary pro-circ bias. What is my bias? Well, I had LS, was circumcised and do not recommend it. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.152.230.183 (talk • contribs).
 * That is a good point. For Men, Lichen sclerosus is a disease that primarily the foreskin, and therefore circumcision will reduce its incidence dramatically. In the same way we could reduce appendicitis by giving everyone a appendectomy. --Dumbo1 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree regarding common pro-circ bias which may be reflected. Men, by their nature and due to the pain, want an immediate "fix" so there's a prevalence of pro-circ information posted by sufferers who are akin to drowning men clutching a lifebelt. Also LS in men isn't merely confined to the foreskin. It affects the inner foreskin, foreskin junction with the glans, the glans, meatus (urethral opening and urethra) and frenulum with perhipheral scarring causing phimosis (although manifestations vary from person-to-person). The process of keratosis causes contraction of tissue similar to that of a burn although the tissue is characteristically whiteish and absence of apparent vascularity. Nor is it confined to the penis in men or vulva in women. It is common on the torso and elbows as well as other areas of the body. Urethral stenosis is also very common in men and I had signficant narrowing of the meatus down from 10mm to 5mm. Sampling internet comments from the circumcised suggests that surgery can lead to a spiral of decline which may involve reconstructive penile surgery. I had LS, was not circumcised and finally resolved the condition and have been in remission for nearly 3 years. Structures which may be damaged such as the frenulum may remain scarred or disfigured though.

Unfortunately the condition is quite rare so there is very little 3rd party objective research to be able to cite to confirm various facts about LSEA/BXO. I think because of this it is important that sufferers coming to this page have a balanced viewpoint expressed which includes as much objective information as possible. 86.5.117.70 (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wording
"the disease may take the form of whitish thickening of the foreskin which cannot be retracted easily." - Does this mean it causes the f-skin not to retract easily, or is caused by a foreskin not retracting easily? --DanielCD 21:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not so much due to a benign "thickening" as the presence of scarring (keratosis). The foreskin can usually not be retracted due to the physical contraction which occurs during the scarring/atrophic process and subsequent pain on retraction. One might consider the damage to be similar to a severe but localised burn. 86.5.117.70 (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Combine with Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus?
This article seems to overlap entitirely with Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus. Should they be combined? Renaissance Healer

Cleanup
Article has very good content but does not fit the format of a medical article. --Lendorien 13:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The information at WP:MEDMOS might be helpful in cleaning up this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fungal?
Was there any research done to see if LS were a fungal condition? 84.75.134.177 (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo
I was recently diagnosed with Lichen sclerosus of the penis and I noticed that the talk page requests a photograph. Should I take a photo of my genitals and upload it, or am I entirely misunderstanding this. Please forgive the anonymous post, but this is already awkward enough without attaching my name to it.

Often termed, incorrectly, lichen sclerosus et atrophicus?
I see that this has a rather official-sounding reference, but wonder if anyone can verify that this is in correct an "incorrect" term for LS? I have been using the longer name for some years now. As far as I understood it, this is just an old-fashioned name for LS but not necessarily incorrect. Am I wrong? 75.155.244.206 (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lichen sclerosus. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518141903/http://www.bettermedicine.com/article/lichen-sclerosus to http://www.bettermedicine.com/article/lichen-sclerosus
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210529/http://dermis.multimedica.de/dermisroot/de/34088/diagnose.htm to http://dermis.multimedica.de/dermisroot/de/34088/diagnose.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"Lichen" as simile(?)
It's almost obvious that the title reflects a confusing comparison based on a presumable resemblance in appearance or (tactile) texture. Surely a reliable source is available to clarify what we've left unsaid (and will otherwise continue to sow uncertainty. --Jerzy•t 01:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)