Talk:Quadriplegia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Neurology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neurology. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Comparison

This article should say how this compares with Paraplegia. I don't know enough detail.

Short, possibly oversimplified, version: paraplegia is from the waist down, quadriplegia is from the neck down. --Paul A 07:58, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, Paul. Waist down/neck down is not the difference. Paraplegia is paralysis affecting two limbs, quadriplegia is paralysis affecting four limbs. Neither term means total paralysis of the limb (i.e. a person paralyzed in the feet but not the knees is a para. Also, many quads can use their arms because the paralysis is not total. Triceps, biceps, wrist flexors, wrist extensors, finger, etc. will have different functionality in each quad depending on how high up the cervical spine is injured.)

[edit] Tetraplegic? and term definitions

Paraplegia says: "If the arms are also affected by paralysis, tetraplegia is the proper terminology."

Which also agrees with the article I got in email, which says: with a chest infection, a complication from a spinal cord injury he sustained in September, 2003 that left him a tetraplegic (paralyzed below the ribcage with limited use of his upper body).


~ender 2008-02-28 21:28:PM MST


[edit] Removed this line cause Superman is now in heaven.

In some rare cases, through intensive rehabilitation, slight movement can be regained, as in the case of actor Christopher Reeve.

Death does not mean cessation of notability. Viz Napoleon. JFW | T@lk 23:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfgang Schäuble

I've removed Wolfgang Schäuble from the list of quadriplegics, as the article says he was paralysed from the waist, therefore making him a paraplegic Graham 09:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hey

Is there a cure or treatment that you could give someone so that if they were quad that they would be able to move?

Depends on the cause of the quadriplegia, but generally the answer is "no". JFW | T@lk 22:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Zupan

Isn't he a paraplegic? Kind of hard to play murderball without your arms, no?

As the article mentions, being tetraplegic doesn't mean you have no use of your arms, it could be just partial loss. Indeed Mark Zupan must be tetraplegic as it is a requirement for wheelchair rugby, it was evidently one of the reasons for the invention of wheelchair rugby as the article discusses... Nil Einne 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not always complete

I edited this to say partial or complete paralysis from the neck down. Quadriplegia is a disability where all four limbs are affected, but it does not necessarily imply total paralysis. Mark Zupan, for example, is definitely a quadriplegic, although he retains some arm function.

One decent working definition, at least as it relates to spinal cord injuries, is that paras break their backs while quads break their necks. That is, someone with quadriplegia has sustained an injury to the cervical spine. This can lead to near-total paralysis à la Christopher Reeve if it is a high injury, but those with lesions lower down the cervical spine can retain some function in their arms and hands. Eron 22:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous persons

Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons I removed the famous persons section since it was completely unsourced. Here is the diff [1] if people want to check it out and source those entries. Garion96 (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I really have a problem with this. Most of those people listed have articles on Wikipedia which clearly state that they are quadriplegic, and which reference that fact. For several of them, their notability is tied to their disability, and no one would dispute that they are actually disabled. What exactly is the issue with listing them here? - Eron Talk 03:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
If they have sources on the corresponding articles it should be easy to source them here. However the {{verify}} tag has been on there for ages and no one sourced them. Besides, it's not really necessary to have a list of famous persons on the actual sympton page (IMO). Garion96 (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I support Garion96's removal actions here, as do the three "nutshell" points in WP:VERIFY. Let's leave the issue of where to list the people for another time, though. Please restore only sourced names (and Wikipedia is not a source). WP:MEDMOS has some guidelines. Colin°Talk 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of living persons citing WP:BLP: that policy states, in part, "editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." (emphasis added). Can I ask what is controversial about the statement that Stephen Hawking is a quadriplegic? - Eron Talk 15:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is controversial to state that someone is a quadriplegic without sources. That's all. For some people Stephen Hawking is unknown but they are sure that person X is quadriplegic, but don't have a source for it and since Person Y also has no source why is it necessary etc etc.. It's so much better just to source it. If I had better computer access here I would find a source myself since it really should not be so hard to find a source for that. Garion96 (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
My question is, why is it controversial? What is it about quadriplegia that makes it a controversial statement, more so than "Stephen Hawking is male" or "Stephen Hawking is white" or or "Stephen Hawking is British"? Please understand that I'm not trying to be difficult here; it's just that there seems to be a point at which a statement about a living person crosses a line and is considered controversial. I'm trying to understand where that point is. - Eron Talk 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not that easy to define. But I would think that stating that someone has a sickness or a physical disability is generally considered controversial. There is/was a discussion about it here. Garion96 (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absolutely major expansion of quadriplegia and paraplegia is needed

First of all, the anatomy and physiology of the spinal column is needed. Roughly the neck is called the CERVICAL spine, the spinal verterbae attached to ribs are the THORACIC spine, and the larger vertebrae between the ribcage and the pelvis are the LUMBAR spine. Second, the extent of injury and the immediate treatment absolutely predict the ultimate outcome in terms of the level of neurological impairment. That is, almost NO spinal injury involves total obliteration of the spinal cord. It is useful to think of the passage through all of the vertebral bones--called the foramen. When one vertebra moves against another (an injury event) the displacement may damage the nerves of the spinal column. Trauma care involves the immediate re-alignment of the vertebrae. Greater mis-alignment and for longer periods predicts greater levels of long term, permanent impairment. Keep in mind that there are vascular structures, as well, passing through the foramen, and misalignmnets will interrupt circulation, thus deteriorating normal neurological conduction of the afferent and efferent nerves of the spinal cord. Thus, "recovery" from spinal cord injury has far more to do with the first minutes after a trauma event--subsequent treatments by physiatrists (physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians), rehabilitation registered nurses and physical therapists (physiotherapists) involve primarily management of the SCI (spinal cord injury) disability. Even with full recovery, the initial days or weeks of impairment must be handled with meticulous competence to avoid corollary difficulty with urinary/kidney complications, pressure sore complications, and joint contractures. The emotional management of the life-changing paralysis (since it is not known if it is a permanent or temporary disability) is important, as well. Note that many trauma events are co-incident with significant human error and it could be argued that many SCI-ed persons might have played a larger role in preventing the injuries. Thus, guilt and self-blaming are common responses of a notable percentage of patients. Nerve impairment of the spinal column has an obvious relationship to all physiological functions below the point of injury, most notably bowel and bladder function (including a sense of "fullness") and sexual function, most easily noted in the unpredictability or absence of erectile function. So, we have a lot of work to do here. HomeBuilding207.178.98.45 14:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)