Talk:Vitreous body

Comments
Ughhhh! Could that image of surgery BE more disturbing? I don't want a justifiably illustrative image censored, but holy fuck that's horrid!--Deglr6328 23:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * oh good, its gone now.--Deglr6328 03:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could add a little something about what the vitreous humor tastes like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.84.53.211 (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling
Apropos of humour vs. humor, is there a Wikipedia standard regarding British vs. US spelling when these are in conflict? I thought there was a preference for US spelling when there is no obvious reason to prefer UK spelling, which is surely the case here. (I'm fine with the UK spelling myself as it is what I was brought up on, but in this case the when-in-Rome rule might apply.)  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ENGVAR the standard is to use whichever is more closely tied to the subject, or if not applicable, whichever the article was originally written in. —EncMstr (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

profit
the link

One Clear Vision: Raising awareness of Vitreous Degenerative Syndrome

seems to redirect to a profitable organization —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.50.18 (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

a little clarity would help
5th sentence: "It is produced by cells in the non-pigmented portion of the ciliary body deriven from embryonic mesenchyme cells which then degenerate after birth." No explanation of "ciliary" or "mesenchyme".

"as well as the hyalocytes of Balazs of the surface of the vitreous"? Maybe we mean "on the surface"?

"a network of collagen type II fibres with the glycosaminoglycan hyaluronic acid" Fibers with acid? What does that mean? Do you mean the fibers are made of acid? Or they contain acid? Or they co-exist with acid?

"Amazingly, with so little solid matter, it tautly holds the eye." Holds it where? Holds it together? Holds it in place? Seems more like a balloon filled with water, except not as stretchy.

"Although the vitreous is in contact with the retina and helps to keep it in place by pressing it against the choroid, it does not adhere to the retina, except at the optic nerve disc, AKA: papilla nervi optici (where the retina sends about 1.2 million nerve fibres (axons) to the brain). It is also connected to the Ora serrata (where the retina ends anteriorly), at the Wieger-band, the dorsal side of the lens. It is however, not connected at the macula, the tiny spot in the retina which gives us our "detail" and central vision." All the exceptions should be listed together. The way it reads is clumsy. 'It's like this except for this one exception. Oh, and by the way I forgot to mention all these other exceptions.' Also the bit about 1.2 zillion axons does not need to be here. Also we have a bunch of undefined terms, again.

Now we come to the important part. "If the vitreous pulls away from the retina, it is known as a vitreous detachment. As we age, the vitreous often liquefies and may collapse." How can the vitreous "pull away from the retina"? Who is pulling it? Likewise, how can the vitreous collapse? It is contained inside the eyeball. Where is it going? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.44.229 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be right that not all of it is as clear as it could be. I'm not an expert, but I'll try to answer your "important part" question. (I have, however, had a vitreous separation that led to a retinal tear. I had to have cryosurgery.  I'm fine, though, thanks). I think some of the unclarity you're experiencing may be due to a failure to distinguish between the vitreous HUMOR which fills the eyeball (liquid at the center, gel-like on the outer aspects) and the vitreous MEMBRANE, referring to both of them as "the vitreous". So if I understand correctly (and please, if I'm wrong, someone correct me), in a vitreous separation it's the vitreous MEMBRANE that pulls away from the retina, and may take part of the retina along with it. What's pulling on it? Well, nothing. It's shrinking, with age, so it's getting stretched, but has no stretchability. In nearsighted individuals such as I used to be (I've since had cataract surgery on both sides), the eyeball is already stretched from front to back, which is why we myopes are more prone to vitreous separations. When I had my exciting vitreous separation, I woke up one morning with dozens of floaters, some the size of economy cars and large dogs. I emailed my doctor, and she sent me to the eye service. They told me I'd had a vitreous separation (or "detachment", and the other eye was already separated, at some previous time. I was in my late fifties when this happened.47.33.89.111 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect info
This statement is incorrect or misleading, "Unlike the fluid in the frontal parts of the eye (aqueous humour) which is continuously replenished, the gel in the vitreous chamber is stagnant. Therefore, if blood, cells or other byproducts of inflammation get into the vitreous, they will remain there unless removed surgically[citation needed] (see floaters). "

I recently suffered an eye injury and had internal bleeding in my eye. I had blood in both my aqueous humor and my vitreous humor and had eye surgery to stitch together my sclera. Following the accident and surgery the blood diffused inside of my eye and my vision faded until complete blindness set in about 2 days after. If I had read this wiki post then it would had been very depressing for me to believe that the blood would never be clearing from my eye. However, I am pleased to report my vision has been slowly returning and the blood has been slowly clearing from both areas. I spoke specifically to my ophthalmologist about this wiki post and she stated that the blood can clear completely from both areas. It happens much faster in the aqueous area than the vitreous but in her experience at most 5% of the blood ever needs to be surgically removed.

Singinius (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

synaeresis
I removed a link to synaeresis from the pathology section that discusses floaters. Is this condition actually called that (I wonder because I didn't find a page, although I didn't look very closely). Should this wiki article more accurately say something like "Similarly, the gel may liquefy via a process known as synaeresis, allowing cells and other" ? Thanks, Vokesk (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Vitreous body. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070426073939/http://retina.anatomy.upenn.edu:80/~lance/eye/humor_vitreous.html to http://retina.anatomy.upenn.edu/~lance/eye/humor_vitreous.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Vitreolysis
a search on vitreolysis, (a procedure to remove vitreous floaters, presumably by laser, but who knows?) redirects to this article. while the subject matter connection is obvious, the article contains absolutely no reference to the procedure.surely this link should be removed. isn't it better to admit up front that we simply don't have any information to pass on on this new technique?Toyokuni3 (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The information is available. You just need to look for it: http://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v16/n1/full/6700026a.html. Feel free to update the article to include content on YAG vitreolysis. Jkokavec (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC about the inclusion of tables on the article
I'd like to get the opinion of a wide variety of editors on the inclusion of the tables in the biomedical section (see Vitreous_body). Whilst I appreciate the effort of editors and the provision of such knowledge to readers, I am on the fence as to whether the tables here are encyclopedic or useful. I'm guided here by WP:NOT a manual, textbook or almanac. I'd like to get the opinions of other editors about this matter. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify there is no dispute as present, but I would like to see the opinions of editors on this matter which is to me a greyish area. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I really like the tables. I can see why their encyclopedic value can be disputed and that they may have low value to the average reader, but IMO they are a perfect example for what Wikipedia could be become in the future. If I were editing the article, I would Fork it and create an article called Composition of vitreus fluid. I hope my two cents are of some value to you and I will gladly elaborate at a later time if you would like (I sadly lack the time for editing the next could of days). Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, tough question indeed. WP is a very big encyclopedia. That's where the distinction with a textbook can get a little vague. The corpus vitreum may not be the most spectacular part of the human body, there's little to say about it in terms of gross anatomy, histology or physiological mechanisms. So if someone nevertheless decides to visit this page, we may as well tell them what we can say about it, which is it's composition. The composition is also somewhat relevant to the noteworthy facts about the corpus vitreum: optics and pathology. PizzaMan (♨♨) 06:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure about whether or not to keep the tables either. Sorry that I can't be more help on this issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

But I will note that WP:NOTAGUIDE states, "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." We do describe things to our readers often; the only issue with doing so is the tone and/or format. I don't see the tables as a WP:NOTAGUIDE violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks everybody, I think that about clarifies it and there is some consensus that the tables that describe the vitreous body are encyclopedic. Removing the RfC tag --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Jumbled
"The vitreous body (…) is the clear gel that fills the space (…)." – OK, so it's semi-solid. "The vitreous humour is fluid-like near the centre, and gel-like near the edges." – OK, so there's a continuum here. But then "The vitreous fluid is not present at birth (the eye being filled with only the gel-like vitreous body)(…)." – so there are actually reasons to distinguish between vitreous body and vitreous fluid? (To make things worse, humor is Latin for liquid/fluid/moisture). Another one: does it replenish if partially lost, the way blood can? 89.171.39.202 (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Evolution
It seems deficient to me that there isn't a section on how this part of the eye is believed to have developed/evolved! Dismalscholar (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)