Talk:Varicose veins

Commercial Promotion

The promotion of ClariVein is clearly biased (including the use of the Register mark)

I

I would like to know if anybody has any feedback on the rate at which the veins grow back after going through childbirth? I am concidering getting my varicose veins stripped, and have been told to wait until after having children.--Hilarylberry 10:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure it is not advocatory that we include a link to leech therapy on this page? Vivacissamamente 14:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I ripped it out. I'm also worried about the barefoot mania. External links are still unregulated, and WP:NPOV does not seem to apply to them/ JFW | T@lk 17:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the condition is specific to the leg, at least not according to my GP. I'm not sure enough to make the edit myself but I do think it would be worth researching. 62.69.54.251 21:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

medical treatment

since when is ibprofen or other anti-inflamatory medication considered non-medical treatment?

Please could the title be changed from 'medical treatment' to 'treatment' as vein stripping is surgical!!! Cheers 81.129.221.26 18:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

They mean "surgical treatment" vs. "non-surgical treatment". That's the standard terms in the medical books. I changed it. But I haven't seen anything in the medical books or on the Internet that says ibuprofen does any good for varicose veins. There may be some people who take ibuprofen for everything. If we can't find a verifiable source we should delete it. Nbauman 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have always had a problem with endovenous laser and radiofrequency ablation being grouped into the surgical category, as they are medical but non-surgical treatments. I think if we simply define surgery as a treatment that involves incision with scalpel and exposure of underlying structures, then neither of these treatments would be included. i know my phlebology colleagues and college here in Australia would categorize the treatments of varicose veins into surgical (stripping and ambulatory phlebectomy) and non-surgical (sclerotherapy, endovenous laser and radiofrequency ablation). The laser companies advertise their machines as being used for the non-surgical treatment of varicose veins. I would like to change this unless anyone has good arguments against. Vein2 9 July 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 06:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Males and Females

In the introduction, it states that varicose veins affect men and women equally, but the Causes section states that women are more likely to suffer from them than men. I have no idea which statement is true. If anyone does, please fix whichever statement is wrong. Thanks. cnodell123 14:29, 28 November 2006

Surgical treatment, Paragraph 5 (endovenous treatment)

I´m interested in the source for the stated incidence rates regarding complications for radiofrequency and laser ablation. Sources I know state significantly different rates. Can you please give me a hint where these numbers come from. Thanks MickMedi 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)MickMedi

These numbers come from individual studies that you can find indexed on PubMed. Different doctors publish studies with their own results. The results vary among doctors. The same doctors get fewer complications with time as they get more experienced. Nbauman 15:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Spider veins

Veins2, this is a minor point but I want to put it on the record.

I don't have Derm Surg Onc at hand, but how do reticular veins (blue veins) and telangiectasias (spider veins) "involve" valvular insufficiency? The BMJ article by Campbell that I linked to says, "they are not the same as varicose veins, though they often occur in association with them." I think "association" is a good word.

The idea that spider veins are baby varicose veins is an intriguing concept, but I thought the defining concept of varicose veins was hypertension caused by vascular insufficiency -- although I can't find a good citation right now. Campbell just says that in varicose veins the valves are "usually incompetent" which leads to reflux with hypertension.

I like the idea of defining varicose veins as an entity that is caused by valvular insufficiency, and thus distinguished from all other entitites that are not caused by valvular insufficiency. I know that a lot of doctors like to take 2 diseases and say, "they are on a continuum," but then you never get precise definitions, and sometimes they turn out to have completely different mechanisms and completely different treatments.

It sounds plasuable that there is a common cause, plausably a genetic variation in the collagen, elastin, matrix metalloproteinase enzymes or something which causes many vascular conditions, but I don't know that and I can't document it.

The hereditary aneurysm defects like Marfan's were caused by a defect in the collagen, but now doctors tell me they think the aneurysms of aging are caused by a defect in the MMP enzymes. So you can't assume that just because they all look alike they're all aspects of the same disease. Or can you?

It's not acceptable for molecular biology purposes, but it may be acceptable for billing purposes. Nbauman 16:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

NBaumann.

Regarding valvular insufficiency in reticular (medium sized blue veins) and spider veins, this is a well established phenomenon. The quoted article was a significant step in proving its existence.(it was a lot harder to prove initially because of the size of these veins being not visible on early low frequency ultrasounds).Somjen et al in that same journal volume also had similar findings- " Anatomical Examination of Leg Telangiectasia with Duplex Scanning". With modern machines and 17MHz probes, reflux is easily identifiable.

The anatomy of the veins in the leg is a major determinant of why some veins are varicose and others produce spider veins, though of course there is a crossover between the two groups. Essentially spider veins are formed when venous hypertension is transferred to the tiny veins in the surface of the leg. This can originate from axial reflux via the SFJ, SPJ or perforating vein incompetence. Or it can originate from medium sized reticular veins and their (smaller, lower-pressure) perforators or other connections to the deep system. As you would be aware there are up to 100 (some authors say more) connections between superficial veins and the the deep veins of the leg. Veins down to 40 microns in diameter have venous valves.

So indeed in at least one respect there is a similarity between varicose veins and smaller reticular and telangiectatic vessels, with valvular insufficiency being the common factor, and the extent of disease being determined by the location of the source of reflux. What the cause of the valvular dysfunction is, that is something that may be different between the entities and i don't think that there has been a defined cause of either. (Vein2 04:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Costs

Vein2, why eliminate references to costs? That's a significant difference, doctors tell me.Nbauman 20:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

NBaumann. With regard to costs, there is are couple of issues with the line as it was. Firstly, wherever it is performed, foam echosclerotherapy is likely to be less expensive that surgery or laser/RF, so the line needed to be corrected. Secondly, the costs of the procedures are going to be different between countries and even within different treatment centres. And thirdly, the cost to the patient is also likely to vary widely depending on the insurance/ health care system and its relative benefits for each of the procedures. So with all this variability, and with charges changing over time, i thought this line to be best left out. (Vein2 05:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

american college of phlebology link.

NBaumann. What was the problem with a link to the american college of phlebology website? I myself have no association with this college but I would consider it an important website. I just had a look and found some nice diagrams. See the anatomical images movies of reflux as well as the definition of terms. The information for patients section seemed pretty thorough and unbiased, and I would think that a link to this respected college would be logical especially for North Americans. The link I would be pointing at and wondering about its place hee is the one entitled "varicose vein overview"- a one page link with much less information.(Vein2 12:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Veins2, I compared the American College of Phlebology's Phlebology.org to VascularWeb. VascularWeb has much more extensive patient and professional information. In particular, VascularWeb has free access to its newspaper, Vascular Specialist, which has thorough meeting reports and interviews with people who publish in journals like Lancet and NEJM. Phlebology.org didn't have anything that wasn't also in VascularWeb in greater detail, in my reading. If you read VascularWeb, you wouldn't find out anything new in Phlebology.org. In addition, VascularWeb seemed to be more promotional, of its doctors and also its industry sponsors. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of web sites on varicose veins, all of them with good illustrations, and most of them are essentially advertising for medical practices; you can't link to them all. One good one is veindirectory.org if you are looking for an unbiased source of information. My philosophy is that you should choose the ones that would be most useful to your readers, and if you already have one with extensive information, you don't need one that contains only a subset of that information.

I realize that this is subjective. It's a judgment call. If after reading the above you want to put it back in, I wouldn't object. Nbauman 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nbauman. I think you are right to say that not all of the thousands of site especially advertising sites for individual medical practises can or should be linked to. But i also think it is reasonable that a significant, internationally renowned, college like the American College of Phlebology be linked. True, this site has similar information to the vascular surgeons' site- VascularWeb, but in my subjective view the phlebology site is a little more accessible and specific to venous disease. Just my opinion. (Vein2 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Diosmin 95

I would like to correct the article about Diosmin 95 and Nutratech. Diosmin 95 was filed through an NDI process in the US by the swiss company Stragen Pharma and not by Nutratech. Nutratech filed an NDI for Diosmin/hesperidin 90/10 with max daily dosage of 500mg. While Stragen filed an NDI for Diosmin 95 600mg per day.

Research Your Doctor - Choose a Specialist

When choosing a physicians, remember to do your homework. Read about their experience and research their specialty. The more experience they have, the better. Couple good resources to use is the American College of Phlebology site (phlebology.org) another good one is Vascularweb. Make sure the physician is trained if you go in for the more complicated procedures, such as the endovenous techniques including EVLT and VNUS. Another good resource to use is veindirectory.org; which lists the physician's background. However, don't trust just the websites, call the physician and ask questions such as: 1. How many procedures have you done, 2. How many years have you been practicing in the field of vein treatment and 3. Do you have extensive training for endovenous techniques.

These are just some resources and tips I think will help you get the best attention.

How much does a complete removal of vericose vein would cost?

Can anyone please share me little bit about where i can get vericose vein cured and the cost for the any such procedure? i will be highly grateful for anyone who can help me with this. thank u. bupaklar@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.166.242 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

External links

• The top link is to an organization without even any content about varicose veins. It's only loosely related to the subject of the article. See WP:ELNO 13. This should be linked to from an article about the organization itself and not much else.
• The second link is to an individual foundation that specializes in varicose veins. Again, links to particular organizations should be avoided in articles about a general subject. See WP:ELNO 13. This should be linked to from an article about the organization itself and not much else.
• The third link is to a college dealing with varicose veins. Again its a link to a specific subject in an article about a general subject. This could be linked from an article about the college itself. See WP:ELNO 13.
• The fourth link contains no information that the article couldn't supply if it was a featured article. See WP:ELNO 1.
• The fifth link also contains no information that the article couldn't supply if it was a featured article. See WP:ELNO 1. I felt sorry removing all the links so I left one standing to encourage people to put in appropriate links. If push comes to shove this should also go.
• The sixth link isn't to anything about varicose veins. This is too broad. See WP:ELNO 13.
• The seventh link is to an individual department of a college, not anything relating to the veins themselves. See WP:ELNO 13.
• The eighth link is to an organization related to varicose veins. Again, see WP:ELNO 13.
• The ninth link is to a particular professor's page. This link serves to promote that particular professor as if he was something special. This violates WP:NPOV as he isn't even discussed. See WP:ELNO 11.
• The last link is about a particular academic conference. Again its not about varicose veins in particular. See WP:ELNO 13.

Also browse through our featured articles and see how many external links they include. Generally if there's something useful to the article in an external link you should incorporate it into the article and cite it properly.

Now that I've went through these one by one when can they be deleted? ThemFromSpace 19:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Themfromspace, thanks for replying. Your numbering is off from the last version. In reviewing the links, I found 2 links that I think are useful and should stay. I deleted the other links -- even though some people may disagree.

• NHS Direct - Varicose Veins is a service of the UK National Health Service. They are very reliable in terms of making decisions based on evidence based medicine. They're not pushing surgery, and they say that in many cases no treatment is needed. I thought that was an important resource, because many of the editors on this page have been POV-pushing for their own favorite treatments, and this adds some objectivity. This should stay.
• Society for Vascular Surgery (U.S.) is a professional society for vascular surgery generally, and among other life-threatening conditions, their members also perform surgery on varicose veins. They also have a free online journal. I've read the web site pages and the journal, and I've found them to be thorough, reliable and objective -- also not over-promoting surgery. This should stay.
• Australasian College of Phlebology I don't see the point of including this one. It has less useful information than the Society for Vascular Surgery, as far as I can tell.
• Venous Research Foundation I was tempted to delete that link myself, but when I checked the link I saw that it was an organization that funded research, and so I wasn't sure that it should be deleted, until I had reviewed the site myself. In reviewing it now, I can't find anything that's unique.
• Baylor's vascular surgery department is not just any department, it's where many of the top vascular surgeons were trained. Notwithstanding that, it doesn't seem to have any useful information.

Some of the other sites are subscription-only, and they should go.

My point is that I do believe in deleting inappropriate links. I've been watching this page and I've deleted some of the obvious commercial sites. But I don't believe in wholesale deletions. You have to check each link individually, which is a lot of work. Nbauman (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think my numbering was off because of the additions from the IP. I always check each link individually before I delete links, even when paving over a massive linkfarm.ThemFromSpace 02:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably keep the NHS Direct link, assuming that it contains something (anything) that isn't already in the article. I'd kill the vascular surgery links; they might be appropriate for Vascular surgery, but not here. External links in this article really need to tell the reader something about varicose veins, not about "some other stuff that's kind of connected". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

VascularWeb is clearly an appropriate link because it's a professional society. I don't think there's a similar professional society with a web site for varicose veins alone. (If I had varicose veins, I wouldn't want them to be treated by a doctor who wasn't a vascular surgeon.) Most important, they're not trying to sell you vascular surgery, like so many other sites.

VascularWeb has dozens of free articles on varicose veins, although it does require a search. They're on a professional level, including reports on the latest treatments from professional meetings, and they're candid and objective. That's the best place I know for detailed information on varicose vein surgery, except for subscription-only sites like BMJ. If you know a better site, let us know what it is. Nbauman (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to linking to an article (any article) on their website about varicose veins. But the front page isn't a good choice, because it's not really about the subject of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

VascularWeb is one of the few authoritative, scholarly, reliable sources of specific information in the spam-filled Internet. They're not promoting any one treatment. It has about 40 high-quality articles on varicose veins (not the usual "patient information" junk that you find elsewhere). They keep adding articles, and the information gets updated, so you can't just link to an article and forget about it. It might be possible to add a link to their search box to create a search for "varicose veins". Nbauman (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to search results violate WP:ELNO #9.

What's wrong with picking one good page about varicose veins, like this one, and letting the reader do his/her own search for more information on that website, if wanted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing here. The front page of a major organization shouldn't be linked to as its not the same subject as the article. Also frequently changing links shouldn't be linked to as well. If there's a good page from the site that contains material that would make it impossible to cite within the article, it should be linked to, but the homepage is too broad. ThemFromSpace 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with linking to one page, like the page you linked, is that it's a good introduction, but that's not the major value of VascularWeb.

VascularWeb has detailed reports on the most important research. There are about 40 good pages about varicose veins, and any one of those pages could be very important to someone who is trying to answer one specific question (perhaps to edit the entry).

VascularWeb clearly has important relevant information that is too detailed to fit into this entry, per WP:EL. We should not delete it. We might add a narrative explanation of how VascularWeb has useful information that you can search for. Nbauman (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that linking to (any) one good and obviously relevant page is a better choice. If you want, you can ask for other opinions at WT:EL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Quibble On Introduction: Phlebologists

Not so much a factual question as a formal one. The two lines, "Many patients who suffer . . . Phlebologists." might do better in a later section of the article. In the introduction I would think one would do better stating the facts of the condition, and leaving potential solutions until later on. 128.147.28.1 (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, and have edited it. Vein2 (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

weightlifting vascularity?

Is weightlifting vascularity related to VV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.41.163 (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

CHIVA proponents

Could I suggest that the CHIVA proponents who have been editing this page, please start a new page Labeled "CHIVA" if the want to put lots on information on Wikipedia. I think that this page being titled Varicose veins should predominately be about vv's with a short description of each of the treatment options, and links from these sections to more detailed treatment pages. Check the sclerotherapy , endovenous laser treatment , and ambulatory phlebectomy pages with their links from this page for an idea of how it would work. Vein2 (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

External Link Request

To whom it may concern,

We are interested in having our link (evlt.ca) added to this page on varicose veins and eventually the Endovenous Laser Treatment page. We are currently in the process of updating our website (owned by Sigmacon Medical), evlt.ca, to include even more information about laser treatment technologies, additional clinical white papers and trials, other treatment options, video animation and relevant media mentions about the treatment of varicose veins.

We pride ourselves on being a top source of education about endovenous laser treatment and varicose veins for the Canadian consumer market and have owned and operated this site for nearly 10 yrs. Interested parties can easily navigate through our site, learn about what causes varicose veins and how they can be treated, what's new in the media and world of varicose veins, link to authority sites on phlebology, interventional radiology, and vascular health, and even find and communicate with a local clinic that specializes in laser (and other forms ie stripping, sclerotherapy, etc.) vein treatments to learn which treatment is most appropriate for them. We feel this linking can further help the Canadian market and others learn more about this disease and what solutions and steps they can take to better their lives!

We look forward to hearing from you and thank you for considering our request!

Best Regards,

Adam Cook

207.188.77.220 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Varicose veins on penis

Hi! Shouldn't there be an article or reference about that? --92.132.167.224 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Should the plural title of the article be changed to singular?

I suggest that the title of this article be changed from "Varicose veins" to "Varicose vein". Wikipedia naming conventions favor using the singular form, unless there is a very good reason not to. However, I do not think that such reasons exist for this article. For example, a person can develop a single varicose vein. While there may be a high probability that another will develop, two or more veins do not always become varicose veins simultaneously. In addition, a single varicose vein can be treated separately or at the same time as other varicose veins. Also, the terms "varicose vein" and "saphenous vein" can be used in their singular form when discussing varicose veins. This usage can be seen in the article, although "varicose vein" is limited to an image description, perhaps because of the frequent use of "saphenous vein" and its variants. A saphenous vein seems to be one of two specific veins, the "great saphenous vein" or the "small saphenous vein", which may or may not be varicose. I get the impression from the article that at least one of the saphenous veins is usually involved if there is one or more varicose veins in the leg. Anyway, while the plural form of "varicose vein" may be used more frequently, there does not seem to be anything that warrants making an exception for the article's title. By the way, I am aware of the requested move process. I just forgot about it until I was almost finished, so there is no need to explain it to me.

In case you are unfamiliar with article name changes and redirects, there is no need to change any links to this page. The page would be renamed and the "varicose veins" would automatically redirect to "varicose vein". In addition, any terms that currently redirect to this article, such as "varicose", would simply be changed to redirect to the article's new name. The responsibility for changing the redirects falls to the person who changes the article's name. Therefore, there is no work to be done on your part, unless you are the one who changes the article's name. Whether you agree with the name change or not, please give your opinion, if you have the time. My time spent on Wikipedia is erratic. If you want to contact me for some reason, please use my user talk page rather than this article talk page. Thank you, Kjkolb (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dubious: Varicose veins are not caused by crossing the legs or ankles

Hello, I found a source claiming otherwise: http://zakrzepica.mp.pl/zylaki/show.html?id=63361, written by a PhD, that suggests that to prevents Varicose veins, You shouldn't cross the legs (4th point from the end). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.74.174 (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed essentials oils

There is no medical citation for the topical application of Therapeutic Grade Essential oils treating varicose veins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smt w (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Circulation review

doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.008331 JFW | T@lk 22:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Propose moving title to singular form

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Varicose veins → Varicose vein – Per WP:PLURAL, this page should be titled in the singular, as it is not about a group or class. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion was converted to a WP:RM at the time of my relist to allow another venue to see this discussion, as well as coincide the timing with the 30-day WP:RFC requirement as best as possible. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Vein, artery, and capillary are singular, but the term "varicose veins" is referring to a medical condition and not a single part of the body. Check the infobox in the top right of the article where this term is used as the name for a classification of a medical condition. Confusingly, if this were more of an anatomy article, I think that "varicose vein" would be the appropriate title, but I do not think that use of the term matches the content in the article. I could change my mind if someone provides sources using the term in the singular, but those sources in the infobox are persuasive to me right now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose changing the title of this article to singular. WP:PLURAL does state that pages should be titled in the singular, but as per Bluerasberry, the page is referring to a medical condition. Meatsgains (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The condition is the general use here, and it appears that most texts refer to the condition as "Varicose veins". --Tgeairn (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, there are some article titles that are best presented in plural form, for instance English plurals. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose this condition is known as varicose veins because there is usually more than one vein affected. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that this is the condition. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 04:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment - Provided below are some sources using the singular term "varicose vein":

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

That being said, I oppose changing the title of this article to singular. WP:PLURAL does state that pages should be titled in the singular, but as per Bluerasberry, the page is referring to a medical condition. Meatsgains (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I checked those sources and they are using "varicose vein" as an adjective term, like "varicose vein surgery". One of them is actually talking about the anatomical part of the body, which is different from the condition. I think I still feel that the medical condition is called "varicose veins". Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Image used in the article itself, labeling a varicose vein in the singular

• Sorry, but I don't understand the "refers to a medical condition, not a part of the body" argument. What does being a medical condition have to do with pluralization? Was there a discussion on this somewhere? I notice medical conditions such as Cataract, Ingrown nail, and Sprain are in the singular.

Whenever the plural is needed, it's easy enough to do [[varicose vein]]s—one of the reasons for having article titles in the singular in the first place is they are easier to link.

Google Books results for:

"a varicose vein"

"the varicose vein"

"varicose vein" -"varicose vein operation" -"varicose vein surgery"

The Wikipedia article itself uses "varicose vein" in the singular: "The illustration shows how a varicose vein forms in a leg."; "Figure B shows a varicose vein with a deformed valve, abnormal blood flow, and thin, stretched walls."—and File:Blausen 0891 VaricoseVein.png shows an image of a varicose vein, labeling it in the singular.

Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• It seems that the question comes down to whether the article is about the medical condition "Varicose veins" or about the anatomical item "A varicose vein". As it stands, the article is a little bit mixed on this.

I was surprised to see Cataract until I read the article a bit. The lede (at least) is about "A cataract", although the article then goes on to discuss the condition ("Cataracts"). A decent (but inexact) example from WP:PLURAL is "Articles on items such as scissors or fireworks are not located at awkward, unnatural titles like scissor or firework." Although one could certainly discuss what "A firework" is, the article is (sensibly) "Fireworks".

In the end, the article needs some rewrite to either be about the condition or about what a varicose vein itself is. This could be handled in the lede and let the rest of the article flow as it may. If the outcome of this RfC is to move to singular, the same thought applies - however I note that a quick search of medical texts generally refers to the condition in the plural ("Varicose veins is a condition where..." or our own Trendelenburg test article). --Tgeairn (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• • It seems that the question comes down to whether the article is about the medical condition "Varicose veins" or about the anatomical item "A varicose vein".: Again, I ask, as I've asked Bluerasberry and Meatsgains: what on Earth does the difference between the medical condition and the anatomical item have to do with titling?
  • Either way, the article will necessarily end up discussing both. What advantage do we get by putting the article in the plural? A subtle psychological one that not all of us can wrap our heads around. What advantages from the singular? Predictability, regularity, ease of linking. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Curly Turkey I concur with Tgeairn's explanation of this, and do not have anything to add, but can give more examples in hope that might be helpful. The name for the medical condition is a technical term, so if the term takes a plural that is defined by use and not by any grammar rule. We have articles on chicken pox and measles, for example, rather than chicken pock or measle just because people imagine and discuss these conditions in the plural. The condition's name takes the plural, and I feel that this article is about the condition in the same way that the pox article looks at the disease rather than any individual pock. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Both those articles are in the singular: "Pox" is not a plural (we talk of "a pox", and the plural is "poxes"), and "measles" is "measles" in both singular and plural (measle has a different meaning). We talk of a "measles rash" rather than a "measle rash" when using "measles" as a noun adjunct, which normally requires the singular form (as in "dog trainer" rather than "dogs trainer").

I still don't see any guideline- or actual use-based reasons for continuing to maintain this article at the singular. Seriously, what concretely is to be gained? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sources treating "varicose veins" as a condition and using the plural (in other words, "varicose veins are" rather than "varicose veins is"):
• National Institutes of Health: "Varicose veins are a common condition"
• WebMD: "Varicose veins are a relatively common condition"
• The Vein Book edited by John J. Bergan, Nisha Bunke-Paquette: "Varicose veins are a degenerative disease"
• Blood Vessels: Advances in Research and Application: 2011 Edition "Varicose veins are a common condition"
• Surgical Ultrasound: An Interdisciplinary Approach for Surgeons, Internists, and Ultrasound Technicians by Ren Mantke & Ulrich Peitz: "Varicose veins are a clinical diagnosis"
• The Prevalence of Varicose Veins in the Lower Extremities by Edwin Borschberg: "varicose veins are a degenerative disease"
• Vascular Surgery: A Comprehensive Review by Wesley S. Moore: "Varicose veins are a disease"
• Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cryosurgery

You state "Then the probe is cooled with NO2 or CO2 to −85o F." Somebody should maybe look up what NO2 is (and what N2O is...) --80.108.182.42 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Cancer claim needs to be updated.

It's been about 30 years and it looks like this hypothesis hasn't really borne out. If there's a link between varicose veins and cancer, an updated source should be provided. Otherwise I think we should delete this. 2603:7081:1603:A300:24A6:E722:C118:ED06 (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)