Talk:Hematoma

Google images link

Ed, I find your addition to hematoma rather unhelpful. External links are already hugely over- and misused, and adding a Google search instruction with a silly warning does not in any way enhance the page. JFW | T@lk 20:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jfdwolff. Thanks for your feedback. I originally thought about adding an image to the article itself, and performed the Google search as part of finding an appropriate one, but after realising how many were available, couldn't decide on any one in particular, so thought the best thing may be to have a link, allowing people to effectively browse examples. As many of the examples were quite likely to shock some people, I considered a warning of some sort to be appropriate, but I wasn't entirely sure of the best way to word it. I hope you were able to word it better! --Rebroad 18:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I simply disapprove of this kind of link. Everyone can search Google without having to be told by Wikipedia to do so, and if they are looking for shoking images they will certainly find them. Furthermore, the information obtained in the way you present it would be amorphous, without any explanation or context. In other words, please don't put it back. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, yes, everyone can search anywhere without being pointed in a direction to do so. So perhaps we should unwikify everything, and let people use their intelligence instead? Or perhaps not - I suspect Wikipedia is here to help people find information. If a link to google images does that, we should include it. Many people (including me) are visually orientated, and words simply cannot convey information as efficiently as images can. Please do not remove the link, but instead, perhaps include an images that you consider is a good example of a hematoma. Thanks, --Rebroad 18:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ed, your approach is a violation of the External Links policy. If you revert again, you will find yourself in a request for comment. Just stop trolling, for heaven's sake. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I might add my comment, and from a purely practical point of view, I think that Jfdwolff has a point: the pictures, as given by Google, are not very helpful, usually not representative, and dramatically lack explanations. It would certainly be an improvement to add pictures to the article, but not this way. Rama 20:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rama, could you draw a (non-shoking) hematoma for this page? :-) JFW | T@lk 10:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would be glad to, but I am unsure of the result. I'll try and let you know the result. Cheers ! Rama 11:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rebroad: it is hardly a problem of policy, it is one of common sense. I asked you to stop trolling above. JFW | T@lk 07:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rebroad, please, it is now trivial that a majority of users do not want the Google link to be featured. Don't waste your time with this ! Also, I will make a photograph of an hematoma when I see a good one (or perhaps someone else will beat me to that), so eventually the article will be illustrated. There's no hurry, no necessity to put links in haste. Rama 13:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hematoma and bruise

How is a hematoma different from a regular old bruise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.139.255.245 (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A bruise is a hematoma near the surface. Hematomas can also be intermuscular or occur in organs, and not show on the surface. HairyWombat (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wombat, I have been trying to get my head around all these definitions. Is the text below correct?

Petechiae (< 0.3 cm), purpurae (0.3–1 cm) and ecchymoses (>1 cm) are terms to describe different sized lesions formed by a common process, i.e. subcutaneous (or submucosal) bleeding which spreads out in a thin layer beneath the skin. The lesions are non blanching, red or purple discolorations. Although often eroniously used as a synonym for bruising, an ecchymosis may not be caused by trauma. A hematoma is a localized collection of extravasated blood, in contrast to the aforementioned lesions which are created by blood in a thin subcutaneous layer. Hematomas may be superficial, where the term contusion can be used, or present in deeper tissues, e.g. intramuscular. These lesions may occur with systemic coagulopathy and/or trauma, but hematomas and contusions by definition result from trauma. The color is produced by the degradation of hemoglobin to bilirubin and bilirubin, and progresses from red, purple, blue and bluish black depending upon the age of the lesion. Return to normal coloration can take up to 2 weeks.

lesion (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea. This is not my area of expertise. HairyWombat 20:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, it sounded like might know the answer from your earlier reply. lesion (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed additional images

I've removed the additional images section with its two images. In particular, the "eye" image is rather shocking. I'm not actually that squeamish, either; I'm not sure how someone who is would react to it. The second "elbow" image didn't really add much to the initial image at the top of the article, either.

If we'd like to use these images for this article, would it at least be best to simply make a text link to them (maybe from beneath the top image, or maybe down near the end of the article)? While I understand this subject has certain necessary content, it seems like there's no reason to put up more gore than is required. Gugustiuci (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ALERT: ENTIRE PAGE IS INACCURATE

Google "hematoma": - it is a SOLID swelling of blood. A MASS of blood. It can be located ANYWHERE, e.g. subdural hematoma. Petechiae, purpura, and eccymoses are by definition NOT hematomas: they "stain" the skin without any mass effect.

Pardon the caps shouting. I got excited.

````

Correction and apology

I apologize: the entire page is not inaccurate, but some signicant parts.

IiKkEe (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Correction and apology

I apologize: the entire page is not inaccurate, but some signicant parts.

The image of the ecchymosis should be removed, since it is not a hematoma. Hematomas do not stain the skin: they cause a lump under the skin. It's also possible to have a lump and a stain: then it's a hematoma and an ecchymosis.

IiKkEe (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Another apology

I've done some online reading and found numerous reputable medical authorities who say petechiae are a type of hematoma.

I just learned it differently: a stain is not a mass, a mass is not a stain, and there are terms for each.

I will withdraw and not comment further.

IiKkEe (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody asked my permission to use that photo

The photo of a buttock/leg hematoma currently on this page is a photo of my ass. When the young resident in the emergency room asked if could take a photo of it with his cell phone, I expressed some reservation -- I told him I didn't want it to appear on the Internet. He said not to worry about it, and made some sarcastic remark to the effect of "nobody's interested in your ass." So I assumed he just wanted the photo for internal reference in my medical records, to show the change in the hematoma over time, and I let him take the photo.

I discovered the photo on Wikipedia by accident when looking up hematomas here. Now I see that the photo is identified as "Picture by English Wikipedia editor Martinkidgell" -- which is certainly a lie, he didn't take the photo. It is now on multiple Wikipedias all over the world, supposedly "in the public domain" and with permissions that "grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose", granted by the "owner" of the photo, Martin Kidgell. How did he become the "owner"? He isn't the doctor who took the picture, and that doctor had no right from me to use it in this way either -- he irresponsibly uploaded it to the Internet against my explicit statement.

I realize it's physically impossible to "remove from the Internet" something that's already been widely disseminated, but just to be clear, I did not grant ANYBODY the right to use this photo for anything other than private medical documentation (i.e. in my hospital records). I don't really care about the photo per se, but the whole process by which this photo was handled feels like a gross violation of my privacy, to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.8.218 (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This image has now been deleted.[1] I'm sorry this happened to you. Thincat (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

discoloration distant from trauma site

Please add more information about large areas of skin discoloration (Ecchymosis "bruise") caused by blood seepage from nearby but distinctly separate location of actual trauma (Hematoma swelling bump). (The Bruise article currently seems much better about this than the Ecchymosis article which really ought to be more detailed and helpful about this aspect.)-73.61.15.113 (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Suffusion" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Suffusion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Suffusion until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} <sup>talk</sup> 03:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)