Talk:Human vertebral column

I

I recall a mnemonic we were taught in school for the order of vertebral types:

The servant attacks with saw and axe the lumbar, stack and cord.

which stands for:

Cervical (atlas, axis), thoracic, lumbar, sacral, caudal

Where would the most appropriate place to record this? --Phil | Talk 09:26, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

There are hundreds of these mnemonics for various anatomical phenomena. Unless there is proof that every student of anatomy uses this mnemonic, I'd be inclined to say it is not encyclopedic. Compare cranial nerves and the proliferation of doubtful mnemonics there. JFW | T@lk 12:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a page List of medical mnemonics. Iztwoz (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggest move to spine

The most commonly used term for the vertebral column is simply the "spine". Currently, spine is a disambig page, and none of the other terms are nearly as common. Would anyone object to me moving this article to spine? -- Creidieki 23:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• There seem to be enough terms that its use as a disambig seems helpful. This current name helps familiarize people with the VC term which is nice. AweCo (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Animals

This article is limited to the human spine, nothing about animals. Riki 07:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been redirected here from other articles talking about chordate animals.. in my opinion, it shouldn't be centered in human anatomy but in a broader sense of the word, including other animals. 95.21.175.211 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Clinical treatments

Some indication of the range of treatments in use for spinal conditions, wouldn't hurt. (Obviously these would vary widely, but some indications of the well known forms of surgery or treatment wouldn't be a bad thing.)

Spinal medical care seems to cover a wide range, from routine surgery for trapped nerves, "slipped disks" and the like, through to vertebral fixation and vertebral fusion. I have no idea what the range is, or what would need mentioning, but the article should touch on this topic somehow, or needs a link or list summarizing the main spinal surgery topics, or the like. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

invertabrates lack a backbone

"[The spine] is situated in the dorsal aspect of the torso..." ??

The spine extends beyond the torso in both directions. Is the above a misstatement? 75.39.124.202 (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Multiplicity of articular surfaces

Not noticing any discussion of the articular surface configurations (procoelous, etc.) in the body of vertebra article, I used my old comparative anatomy textbook to add one. I then found that not only was that material covered here, it was covered in two consecutive sections (Structure of individual vertebrae and Classification), more or less the same way. We certainly don't need three versions of more or less the same thing. If someone wants chunks of what I wrote on the other article, feel free to bring them here. I'd just like to have one location so we can set up redirects for procoelous, etc. J. Spencer (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sunk the "Structure" version into "Classification", but the rest still stands. J. Spencer (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for giving this article some much-needed attention. Mokele (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Axial extension

The current actions for the spine that people are familiar with are flexion, lateral flexion (to left or right), rotation (same), and extension. One concept I have come across in a book and seen mentioned in some places on the internet is the concept of "axial extension". Basically it does not seem to be a uniform bending in the same direction by all joints. Rather, it seems to be a combination of flexion and extension in different vertebrae to reduce the inherent curves and make it as straight, tall and 'long' as possible. Basically, it is a different kind of neutrality, and what the action is would depend on the starting alignments as opposed to the others which exist regardless of starting locations. Has anyone else heard of this, and based on what we can read about it, is this something we can easily explain in a subsection here, or possibly a different article? [1] nad Exercise 4 give examples of people talking about this concept in relation to the neck. Also here is an excerpt from a site whose URL is blacklisted so doing a quote from the page of spinal actions:

Yoga Anatomy: Spine Safety: Awareness of the Functions and Limitations of Areas of Your Spine - There is a fifth spinal movement called Axial Extension, though it is not considered a "natural" movement. This distinction is due to the fact that Axial Extension does not occur in daily life, a student must undertake it consciously. However, for students of yoga, the Axial Extension is not only familiar, it should be quite comfortable! This is the lengthening, straightening movement of the spine to bring the posture beyond the natural curvature used in Tadasana (Mountain Pose), Dandasana (Staff Pose), and many resting and meditative seated postures.

It seems clearest here and reminds me of what I read in the book. Yoga Anatomy I think is the name so perhaps it actually is that. Google Books shows the term in the preview too. AweCo (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparative table

Would be good to get a table to compare the cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacrum and coccyx vertebrae 129.180.1.214 (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Split

I'm proposing a split of content specifically relating to bony anatomy to Spinal vertebrae. This is because:

• These are about two different topics - a system (column) and a part of the system (vertebral column)
• There are articles about individual vertebrae (lumbar, thoraic), but no introductory article
• Information on individual vertebrae, including their anatomy, should be shown on a separate article.
• Having these on the same page is confusing and detrimental to quality.
• There is a huge amount of information on the spinal column as a whole (diseases, embryology, etc.) that should be in this article

Therefore, I propose a split. --LT910001 (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the template 'vertebral column' as this template lists the spinal roots and the muscles that they supply, which relates to the spinal cord, a component of the nervous system, rather than the vertebral column, a component of the musculoskeletal system. This article is about the bony anatomy 'vertebral column', has a large amount of images, and already directs to the page spinal cord.--LT910001 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Spinal curvature

I am proposing this merge because

• Curvature is an inherent part of the human vertebral column
• It is confusing to display this in two different places
• The quality of the article, and its readability, would be enhanced by having this information displayed in one place. LT910001 (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to keep 'spinal curvature' and merge both lordosis (with lumbar hyperdosis) and kyphosis with this. Page does make reference to the clinical deviations of the normal curvature. Iztwoz (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Aargh, this is messy. let's get some more eyes on this. My feeling would be to merge curvature as it is physiological, and have lordosis and kyphosis as short separate entities (or maybe merged, not sure) - actually there is alot on treatment that could come up with abnormal curvature.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It states in first para of Spinal curvature, that the term 'spinal curvature' is usually used to refer to abnormal curvature. Seems a more logical option to just make a ref to this in a Clinical significance section here with refs to main articles of kyphosis, lordosis etc. If there are no objections, shall do this. Iztwoz (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Spinal vertebrae

Page is a duplication of content on Human vertebral column page. This is an unnecessary split causing confusion Iztwoz (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, go for it. HCA (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 Disagree. I think these articles need to remain separate for a couple of reasons, mainly that there is a need to separate information from the column as a whole from the actual bony components. This is the standard for most of our articles (eg dividing the structure and substructures) so it's not a unique situation. I think there is too much informtion that needs to be conveyed separately t have them on the same article. Plus we need(ed) a header article for the individual vertebrae.

For example with an individual vertebrae, for structure we need to talk about the shape and all the different anatomical components (which differ by area), and then how the shape changes depending on the area; for function the substructures which pass through and connect to each individual vertebrate; and for clinical significance conditions which affect individual vertebrae, eg fractures. In contrast in the vertebral column as a whole we should talk about the shape, curvature, necessity to protect internal contents; in clinical significance conditions relating to curvature and compression. I think we should keep these articles separate. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Vertebral column

Think the two will easily merge in line with not making human specifics Iztwoz (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree would centralise the information and as per other articles. The parent article is not so great as to need a separate page in my opinion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)