Talk:Organ bath

This page was nominated for deletion on 16 May 2019. The result of the discussion was redirect replaced by an article.

Commercial suppliers

In building an article, it might be helpful to have a list of commercial suppliers:

Klbrain (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this. However, I don't like the idea of such a list, per WP:ELNO. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I added in part as evidence for those who were dubious that such devices still existed in a modern form. Will delete the list on the page. Klbrain (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference from "Isolated organ perfusion technique"

Hi, @It's gonna be awesome:. You added a disambiguation on the page for "Isolated organ perfusion technique". Since that technique doesn't have an article, if you could add a quick sentence in the body of this one about how the two techniques are different, that'd be amazing. Thanks. Jamgoodman (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Just created Isolated organ perfusion technique. Thank you for the kind reminder. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the difference. It looks to me like two names for the exact same thing. Should the pages be merged? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tryptofish; I don't see any significant difference between the two articles. Jamgoodman (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that organ bath is studied in vitro while Isolated organ perfusion technique is studied in vivo. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 08:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you completely sure about that? How would you isolate an organ in vivo without harming an animal? Jamgoodman (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable question. But in today, it's possible in the context of organ transplanation. And organ bath looks more like being conducted in organ translplanation. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checking those references on the Isolated organ perfusion technique page, it does seem that they are almost entirely discussing ex vivo (in vitro) experiments: that is, where the organ is removed from the body for study. It is possible to selectively perfuse organs in vivo in anaesthetised animals (with, say, non-recovery surgery) but that's not what the referenced articles are discussing. The term isolated is indeed used to mean ex vivo. That is certainly what we meant when we published on the isolated vas deferens (a term also appearing in papers back to the 60s using an ex vivo approach). Klbrain (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, T.; Wechsler, A. S. (1998). "The Isolated Organ in Research". Surgical Research. New York, NY: Springer New York. pp. 435–452. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1888-3_49. ISBN 978-1-4612-7325-7. Technological advances in artificial perfusion allow effective isolated perfusion of a wide variety of organs and tissues, including, but not limited to, brain, heart, lung, heart-lung, liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, thymus, gastrointestinal tract, urinary tract, reproductive tract, skeletal muscle, nerves, and blood vessels. It's in vivo. Just take brain as example. One can not bath the brain in vitro. ECMO is another example. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in vivo if the organ is removed from the animal though. That's in vitro or ex vivo, as Klbrain says. An in vivo organ study would need the organ to be in its natural place, within the animal. Jamgoodman (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading a bit further on in that Yeh et al. article, we see: Finally, because organs are rapidly excised and the donor animal immediately sacrificed, isolated preparations may be a more humane form of animal experimentation. That article is using the convention of isolated being ex vivo, although I agree it takes some reading for that to become clear. Klbrain (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are we perhaps at the point where it would be a good idea to start a formal merge discussion? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd back a merge.Jamgoodman (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend maintaining the status quo. Organ bath:"An organ chamber, organ bath (or, colloquially, gut bath) is a chamber in which isolated organs or tissues can be administered with drugs, or stimulated electrically, in order to measure their function. The tissue in the organ bath is typically oxygenated with carbogen and kept in a solution such as Tyrode's solution or lactated Ringer's solution." . It's just not the case defined in the Isolated organ perfusion technique. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.quora.com/Why-injection-is-administered-in-vein-only-not-in-artery : "'isolated organ perfusion technique' in which is employed in some particular cancers or attempt to salvage a very bad limb. An isolated limb is connected to perfusion system and arteries are infused with the mixture of the blood and drugs and venous Drainage goes to the circulation machine and gets oxygenated much like in a heart lung bypass machine this way the toxicity to the whole body is avoided and the organ in which cancer is located is provided with chemotherapy."--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: How do you think about? --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 03:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs primary sources trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@It's gonna be awesome: Can't find the quote in the Quora link; also, why trust chat on Quora over a peer-reviewed review articles? That isn't consistent with WP:REF. Merge discussion seems reasonable. Klbrain (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain: Here is the full version of that Quora's quote in addition to the peer-reviewed journal in order to make it easier to understand a bit:

“

Here I go:

1. Arteries are deep, Veins are superficial so easy to access.

2. Arteries have higher pressures, so puncture site more likely to bleed if pressure not applied till bleeding stops.

3. There is usually only one artery supplying a limb (where it is easier to access) but more than one veins draining the same areas. So you can imagine what will happen if one Artery vs one vein thromboses (clots from inside)

4. Since arteries have higher pressures, you will need active power/pressure assisted injection, and gravity assisted infusors will be useless (like an IV fluid bottle connected via IV line). If you connect a non-pressurized IV fluid to arterial line it will start Flowing back towards the bottle instead of going into the body

5. If you inject a drug in artery, (unless in root of aorta) All the injected drugs (medicines) will go through one specific organ the artery supplies, in high concentration And lot of drugs will be absorbed/filtered in that tissue may be causing local overdose/toxicity.. or blockade of capillaries. some of these drugs (e.g. Thiopentone sodium) may cause severe arterial spasm or precipitate in artery causing blood flow to specific organs to be stop and necrosis (ischemic death) of supplied area.

6. When you inject in vein, the Drug get diluted in continuous flow of the blood towards the heart And further into the heart Chambers by churning action in the heart and then through the pulmonary circulation avoiding excessive high concentration in any particular tissue (execept lungs, which has vast capillary network and high blood flow) Avoid precipitation of drugs or spasms of arteries in any particular organ systems.

These are the Main Reasons why veins are used for regular injections and not arteries.

7. An Exception of the above is 'isolated organ perfusion' technique in which is employed in some particular cancers or attempt to salvage a very bad limb. An isolated limb is connected to perfusion system and arteries are infused with the mixture of the blood and drugs and venous Drainage goes to the circulation machine and gets oxygenated much like in a heart lung bypass machine this way the toxicity to the whole body is avoided and the organ in which cancer is located is provided with chemotherapy. -Ashutosh Pandey, Doctor of ModernMedicine MBBS, DNB.Specialized in Anaesthesiology &Critical care

”

Also Cypel, Marcelo; Keshavjee, Shaf (2016). "Novel Technologies for Isolated Lung Perfusion". Thoracic Surgery Clinics. 26 (2). Elsevier BV: 139–145. doi:10.1016/j.thorsurg.2015.12.002. ISSN 1547-4127. ILP is attractive as a concept to deliver high-dose chemotherapy to treat pulmonary metastatic disease, referred to as in vivo lung perfusion. Therefore, we know isolated organ perfusion is performed in vivo. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 02:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I won't repeat my Quora objections. Regarding Cypel et al, I accept that that group is using the phrase isolated lung perfusion to refer to in vivo perfusion. However, that paper also notes that ILP as been used to assess physiologic integrity of donor lungs after removal from the donor, then going on to redefine such a term, for the purposes of their paper, as ex vivo lung perfusion. So, my reading of this is that they're acknowledging their unconventional use of their term. I'm not sure whether such alternative use has caught on. There is a closely related concept, that of Limb perfusion; I note that Isolated limb perfusion is a long-standing redirect to limb perfusion following a merge back in 2010. I can't see any discussion, but I guess it was because isolated was ambiguous in the content of in vivo. That ambiguity seems to apply here too. Klbrain (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it can be ambiguous. Thanks for your amazing insight. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 10:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before we start a formal merge discussion, I think it would be useful to have a discussion about what the merged page will be called. I'm not enthusiastic about the existing names for either of these pages. I don't think Isolated organ perfusion technique needs the word "technique" in the pagename. And I have never particularly liked the name Organ bath, because the word "bath" sounds incredibly odd. One possibility that I'm tentatively thinking about is Isolated organ perfusion. However, I haven't done any Google searches with respect to WP:COMMONNAME. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isolated organ perfusion sounds fine to me, with Organ chamber or Organ bath as a section. While I think that the term is mostly used for ex vivo protocols I think that it would be fine to discuss in vivo techniques too; I don't think that the sum would approach 100k any time soon. Klbrain (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the page should be renamed. 'Organ bath' is the main term in biosciences and is far more common than 'isolated organ perfusion' by both Pubmed (2646 vs. 77) and Google Ngram. Jamgoodman (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, "organ bath" sounds like taking a bath for the organ. I am not sure if an organ can enjoy a bath in vivo. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 10:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, tend to think of vaginal steaming when I hear "organ bath". But I do think that WP:COMMONNAME is important to consider. However, after looking at various PubMed hits, I think we have to be careful about the effects of how phrases are constructed. I agree that "organ bath" gets that many PubMed hits, and it's a lot more than "organ chamber" or "isolated organ". However, "isolated heart" gets 3125 hits, soundly beating "organ bath", and that's just one organ. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]