Talk:Vitrectomy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 October 2019 and 23 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ALKNOPTR. Peer reviewers: Amucsfwiki.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Image
That's pretty brutal. Perhaps something a little less, er, horiffic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.98.209 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC).

OMG, I looked here because I am in need of this surgery and that photo is making me seriously consider just staying blind...terrifying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.199.186.2 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

I have to agree - that picture is a bit of a shocker - almost like its been put there by a troll? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.63.212.123 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

I'm taking a brief hiatus from editing wikipedia after seeing this. I followed a link from the Floater article, being positively amazed at the idea that it might be possible to treat that problem. Not very easy to make an objective assessment of whether it's desireable after seeing that image; so, effective obstruction of NPOV if you'll pardon the pun. At the very least, the top and bottom image should be swapped. Unfortunately, this is entirely in line with the wikipedia consensus of actively putting offensive images everywhere under the flag of "is not censored". I'd vastly prefer to be able to click on this stuff when I want to see it. Zuiram 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the previous comments. Firstly, I assume the colouring of the image has made people concerned about it (Looks like a horror movie); possibly the submitter could restore the photograph to its original; not black and white state, if it has been editied. However, the photograph is of a medical nature; this is simply a photograph of the human body. It is if someone took a photograph of surgary to remove one's appendix; I think it provides a clear illustration of the technique. 58.160.151.206 04:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My friend and I thought it would be a laugh, to perform a vitrectomy on me - now I can't see very well. But the vitreous has been removed successfully !! (It's in my left hand as we speak) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.37.250 (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the picture on top shows a vitrectomy. For sure it doesn't show a pars plana vitrectomy as it is performed today. Most probably it shows a lens removal via pars plana which is performed in childhood's cataract. --H. de Groot (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, if you're going to randomly delete images, don't trash entire paragraphs and markup along with them. Use the goddamn preview button, that's what it's there for. "Edits" like that are indistinguishable from vandalism. I've restored the text. (And yes, that's exactly what a vitrectomy looks like; the photo is magnified and the procedure is painless.) 24.166.211.194 (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's fine to have the images in the article if they are medically accurate, but how about just putting the startling images toward the bottom of the article in a section titled "Images"? That type of thing is done in many other articles. It is natural for it to be shocking to have a widened eye staring at you, and it makes the summary text pointlessly difficult to read. People who want graphic details will easily find it farther down after they've gained some understanding of the topic. DKEdwards (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Work plan ALKNOPTR
I will be updating the vitrectomy wikipedia page for the following things: --list complications of vitrectomy one at a time and describe in detail what it means --use easier language (ie proliferative retinopathy) Timeline 11/1:  WP 1 11/6:  WP 2 11/13: WP 3 11/19: WP 4 11/21: finalize 11/22: warp/up — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALKNOPTR (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

UCSF Wiki Nov 2019 - Peer Review
Thanks for updating this page! Overall, I think your page is well-written and uses language that is easy to understand. I liked how you explained medical terms. Information is accurate. Can consider consolidating or re-organizing some of the headers/sections. Don't forget references if you have any.

Intro summary: I like how you not only defined what a vitrectomy is, but also gave quick overviews on the different types of vitrectomies. Could consider creating a section for "History" for that last paragraph.

Anesthesia for vitrectomy: I think it's a nice touch to add the anesthesia part because it's obviously a vital part of the procedure. I like how you don't go too much in detail considering that's not the point of this page, but the options can link out to their respective wiki page. Can consider moving it further down the page given it's additional information.

Pars plana vitrectomy: Nice that you went into further detail on the pars plana vitrectomy, giving a little history as well which is always interesting. Can consider maybe doing a similar section for anterior vitrectomy if there is relevant information that wasn't addressed in the intro summary.

Additional surgical steps: Again, nice that you went into further detail explaining other steps involved in the procedure. I particularly like how the information is organized, and allows you to link out to their respective wikipedia page for further information if the readers chooses to do explore some more.

Indications: Valuable indications section. Consider moving it towards the top of the article given it's important to know why to do the procedure before going into the procedure itself. Again, love the organization with quick informative paragraphs but links out to respective wikipedia page if reader wants more information.

Complications: Important section to add, especially considering it's a surgical procedure so thank you for doing so. I re-organized the order of how you presented the complications just for the sake of coherence. I like how you introduced the complications by their technical names, but gave quick explanations on what they are.

Recovery/Vision after vitrectomy: Both thoughtful sections considering recovery and return of vision are important considerations of this procedure.

Technology/Cultural references: Cool sections but I don't feel entirely necessary. Feels more like fun facts, which is always nice to have for reader engagement/interest.