Talk:Fascia

Unrecognized Interstitium

Are fascia really made up mostly of collagen, or do they contain fluorescein-filled sinuses with reticular patterns? Petros C. Benias, Rebecca G. Wells et al. describe "dynamically compressible and distensible sinuses through which interstitial fluid flows around the body" in [Nature Scientific Reports volume 8, 2018|https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23062-6]. They observed the sinuses in "fascial planes of the musculoskeletal system and adipose tissue." among many other places. Can a volunteer please mention this development in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvartMan (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Fascia article revisions underway

I got started by rewriting the first paragraph, adding a reference section and adding articles to the regional categories. I hope to model this article after the one written on "muscles", including sections like: Anatomy, Physiology, Interactions with other systems of the body, Role in health and disease, and Therapeutic interventions. I'm brand new here and need feedback and help on this article. Anyone else care about fascia?? Massagenj 19:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the -Classification by type- section. I changed the -Classification by region- to -Classification by organ system- and added many articles to this section. This is not yet complete. Most notably absent are ligaments. This is an awfully long list. Perhaps the "fascia" article should be abbreviated and a separate list created out of this section?? Noob needs advice on how to proceed.Massagenj 05:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

superficial fascia varies in thickness under dermis. Does the deep vary? need for anatomy question.

Most recent edit took most of its information directly (cut and paste) from http://www.windsongtherapy.com/Articles/Fascia/fascia.html. Reverting for that reason. There is some valid information to be included, but needs to be done so that copyright is not infringed upon. Nyxie 05:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article is in need of major work. I've marked it as a stub for that reason --Mattopaedia 02:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "Fascia has an essential role in hemodynamic and biochemical processes, and provides the medium that allows for intercellular communication." is so vague as to be pretty meaningless. Facia does not help neurons in the brain communicate with one another. The last sentence about acupuncture has some new relevant research - see PubMed article ID # 19409857. (Anon July 11, 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.39.121 (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "fascia"

There may be a couple of mistakes in the explanation of how to pronounce "fascia". The article says that the "a" should be pronounced like the [second] "a" in "Natasha", which is called here a "long-a".

First of all, "Natasha" is not pronounced the same way by native English speakers across all regions or countries. Americans, for example, will likely agree that the second "a" in "Natasha" and the "a" in "father" rhyme, while many native speakers in the UK will probably say the sounds are different.

Secondly, it can probably be argued quite well that the term "long-a" generally refers to the "a" in "cake" or "wait" rather than the first vowel sound in "father".

The beginning of the article deals with pronunciation in the best way possible, by using an international phonetic script. The note on "Natasha" is confusing for a global audience and should be deleted.

-unsigned comment

Done. JohnJohn 05:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Three Types of Dense Connective Tissue?

I've changed this to four, in order to include aponeuroses, but even so I'm not sure if it's true or if it even makes any sense-- especially since tendons, ligaments, and aponeuroses can all be continuous with deep fascia, and even more so because I'm sure there is some visceral dense connective tissue somewhere in the body that wouldn't fit this categorization. Kajerm 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading the fascia and aponeurosis articles I am not clear on the difference between the two. Both fascia and aponeurosis seem to be sheaths or coverings. The only difference I could determine is that fascia covers muscles, organs and joints whereas aponeurosis covers only muscles. Since both pages refer to each other I think someone who knows should add some more distinction. Mbarden 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

....................

I have removed the following "Myofascia Myofascia is defined as a layer of loose but strong connective tissue often containing fat covering and investing all muscles; an aponeurosis. The intrinsic connection between muscles and muscle fibers with connective tissue, fascia."

This term is a questionable one and I can not find a reliable source for its use. It's use seems to be restricted to a certain branch of alternative medicine, Myofascial Release. The terms "Deep Fascia" and "Fascia of the Muscles" are more appropriate terms in gross anatomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.153.18 (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Fascia is not the first line of defense...

against pathogenic agents and infections (which is redundant, BTW). The dermis, otherwise known as "skin" is the first line of defense as regarded by western empirical medicine. Furthermore, the fascia acts in conjunction with the vascular system to enable tissue repair. Solace098 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

cleaned vandalism

someone added the line "this is not correct" to the end of the "Three layers of the fascia" section. I took the liberty of removing this line as it was clearly an attempt of vandalism. Please make sure wikipedia's vandalism bot doesn't go back and undo my change as it has done this several times in the past when I attempted to fix vandalism. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.101.38 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helping fight vandalism. Registering or signing in would lower the probability of having your edits reverted (whether by a bot or an editor). – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 23:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Silver skin

Silver skin redirects here, but there's no discussion of it. There is some culinary relevance to the matter, but this article solely discusses human anatomy. That needs to be fixed. --Kevin W. 19:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this Article.

I just got through reading and skimming the Article Extracellular matrix and I thought this sounds like Fascia. So I came back to this Article.

I have seen only one published research paper purporting to have proven the existence of the underlying bodily system called fascia. This is the system that Massage Therapists like to release. This Article (fortunately) has little to say on this system.

Yet the diagnosis Plantar Fasciitis (Wikipedia spelling) is a very common one. And that Article has an extremely large *fanclub*.

I have nothing to contribute (as usual); I would suggest that if there are really a number of important fascia structures in the mammalian body-- perhaps each should be treated individually at this point. Seems this Article mentions only 3 structures. TheLordSayeth (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I sympathise. I also had to do some re-reading and was left with reservations. That such tissue exists is certain; ask any butcher, let alone dissectionist. The description and discussion in the article need a lot of work. It is not clear for one thing whether there is an element of spam or at least of POV to the article; there certainly seems to be some partisan text on such subjects on the WWW, and some of the article's passages are quite evocative of that material. It would be nice if some literate professional human physiologist or histologist could weigh in and do some cleaning up. JonRichfield (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article myofascia is very short, and from what I understand, myofascia (muscle fascia) is a type of fascia and is inside the scope of this article. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! HCA (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Support the merger proposal. Article is very short, and myofascia is all a part of the overall topic of fascia in biology. N2e (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have completed this merge. As the references were to wikitionary, they could not be preserved. --LT910001 (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge with Superficial fascia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article, split from Fascia, has not significantly expanded in the last 5 years. Instead, the series of "fascia" articles confusingly duplicate information, which makes it hard to understand and hard for readers to navigate. Merging the information into a single article reduces duplication, and aids the reader by providing the context of other types of fascia. Information can be merged into a subsection of the article and, if needed in the future, could be re-expanded as a separate article. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Merge, as it could easily fit in a level-2 section heading. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 02:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge with Visceral fascia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As above. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Merge, as it could easily fit in a level-2 section heading. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 02:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge with Deep fascia

As above -- can easily be represented in a 'Function' section Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Don't merge, as there is too much information on that page to fit in a single section. Create a Deep fascia section with a single-paragraph summary and the {{Main}} hatnote at the top. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 02:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support think that existing info could be condensed and seems odd to be not included on Fascia page --Iztwoz (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposals for change

As someone with a specialist knowledge in this field as a connective tissue dissection specialist, I am happy to add and contribute. There is some limited evidence in terms of fascial properties which probably won't pass muster. I am slightly nervous of treading on the toes of the clique on Wikipedia and inadvertently expressing POVs. The current terminology is almost certainly insufficient to describe the fascial layers accurately or adequately. Certainly the three layers isn't accurate as the fascia is a continuous network. The statement in the article that it is regular and runs parallel to the line of strain is also totally incorrect and illogical. If it ran parallel to line of strain, it would fall apart on tensional input. The point about it is that it many places, it is highly irregular, such as the thoracolumbar fascia. Here it has many directions, many layers and follows no one directional line of strain. Anyway perhaps someone could advise me where to go next. I have no intention of editing the article, but as it stands it is an incredibly poor representation of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrakardabra (talk • contribs) 14:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)§

Thanks for your comments, Abrakardabra. Most inaccuracies result not because of a clique of editors but because of incremental edits over time that change the meaning, or because a lot of text was derived from Gray's Anatomy 1918, which is not optimal. The only way changes are made on Wikipedia is through volunteers. I invite you to make those changes, or at least to propose changes here and I'll make them on your behalf. Feel free to explore the topic further and point out further inaccuracies, too. If you need any help please contact me by leaving a message on my talk page or use this to contact me: {{u|LT910001}}. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Be aware, Abrakardabra, that you must support any suggested edits with references to scientific peer-reviewed journals only. HCA (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Myofascia and Myofascial

Myofascia, Myofascial, and Myofascial pain syndrome redirect here, although it's not apparent why because there's no boldface mention of those terms per MOS:BOLD. Would somebody with more medical knowledge than myself please work these terms into the article and boldface them at their first instance? – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 23:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)