The guys from Kuprum try to publish medical information from reliable English sources, but they are very often mistaken.
Personally, I am extremely sensitive to errors in publications about health, so I comment and suggest corrections.
So the topic of thrombosis in the guys from Kuprum begins with the definition of the concept of "thrombus". The author of the article believes that if a blood clot closes the wound, then it is a clot, and if a clot forms without damaging the vessels on the inner side of the vascular wall, then it is a thrombus.
No. The guys were wrong. A blood clot is a blood clot. Dot.
Moreover, the guys from Kuprum on the word "thrombus" established a link to an English-language resource, where the word "thrombus" does not exist at all. There is only the phrase "blood clot". That is, the guys wrote it out of the blue.
Let's go further. The guys write that the presence of a blood clot in a blood vessel is called thrombosis.
No. This is wrong. Thrombosis is called only the thrombus that blocks the blood flow. He does not have to cover it. A blood clot may be smeared along the vessel wall and may not interfere with blood flow.
Then the author of the article writes about pulmonary embolism, which can lead to bleeding.
Usually, if a blood clot clogs a blood vessel, the bleeding stops. There, with thromboembolism of the pulmonary artery, of course, there is microscopic bleeding, when a part of the lung dies off in the area of responsibility of the blocked part of the pulmonary artery, but this is not important. The guys lied something. The English-language link also points to lies. According to the link, there is not a single hint of bleeding. Dreamers!
Then the guys write that a blood clot can get into the heart, block the blood supply to the heart muscle, and there will be a heart attack.
Guys, well, there would already be enough school knowledge of anatomy. The blood supply to the heart muscle is blocked when a blood clot enters the coronary artery. It moves away from the aorta. For a blood clot to enter the heart, and then into the aorta, it must first pass through the vessels of the lungs. That is, through the pulmonary circulation. And only then he could get into the heart. But it won't. Because it gets stuck in the lungs. School program.
Then the author writes for blood clots in the arms or legs. And that it would be fever, pain, and swelling.
Well, here the author is to blame. At the beginning of his article, he said that it would be about arteries and veins. So for the veins, his symptoms are suitable. But for the arteries - no. If a blood clot has blocked the flow of blood through an artery to a leg or arm, where does the heat and swelling come from? There is no blood in this place. There will be a cold and blue hand or leg.
At the end, my favorite moment. The author from Kuprum writes that crossectomy is a special way of suturing the great saphenous vein so that blood flows through it and clots are retained.
If the author had studied for at least one semester in medicine, he would not have screwed up on such a question, because "ectomy" is cutting out something entirely. Latin. There is not even medicine there yet, but just a universal terminology. That is, the vein is cut off completely. And then, for sure, nothing can pass through it - neither blood, nor blood clots.
In short, the authors from Cuprum are an inexhaustible source of inspiration for me. Well, dear readers, they are lying to you.
