Talk:Abducens nerve

Anatomy: Neuroanatomy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.

Animal anatomy Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neuroscience High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

For

For anyone else who reads the edit by User:88.175.108.52, I agree; the abducens nerve is a motor nerve, not a mixed nerve. See "Anatomy and Physiology" by Kenneth Saladin.

"Do-nothing nerve"

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An IP recently added the synonym "do-nothing nerve" to the article intro, without citation or an edit summary. I have never heard of this term, and Google returns no hits outside of Wikipedia. I'm reverting it. - Draeco (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Only hagfishes

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lampreys do have VI cranial nerve. Source - Butler, "Comperative Neuroanatomy", 2nd edition, page = 214--TnoXX (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Redundancy

Under the "Clinical Significance" section, there are two paragraphs under consecutive headings, "Damage" and "Peripheral lesions" that are equivalent:

Damage to the peripheral part of the abducens nerve will cause double vision (diplopia), due to the unopposed muscle tone of the medial rectus muscle. The affected eye is pulled to look towards the midline. In order to see without double vision, patients will rotate their heads so that both eyes are toward the temple.^{[citation needed]} Partial damage to the abducens nerve causes weak or incomplete abduction of the affected eye. The diplopia is worse on attempts at looking laterally.

Complete interruption of the peripheral sixth nerve causes diplopia (double vision), due to the unopposed action of the medial rectus muscle. The affected eye is pulled medially. In order to see without double vision, patients will turn their heads sideways so that both eyes are looking sideways. On formal testing, the affected eye cannot abduct past the midline – it cannot look sideways, toward the temple. Partial damage to the sixth nerve causes weak or incomplete abduction of the affected eye. The diplopia is worse on attempted lateral gaze, as would be expected (since the lateral gaze muscle is impaired).

As well, see this equivalent sentence in two different paragraphs under "Peripheral lesions:"

Peripheral sixth nerve damage can be caused by tumors, aneurysms, or fractures – anything that directly compresses or stretches the nerve.

Indirect damage to the sixth nerve can be caused by any process (brain tumor, hydrocephalus, pseudotumor cerebri, hemorrhage, edema) that exerts downward pressure on the brainstem, causing the nerve to stretch along the clivus.

To my eyes, two of the four paragraphs under "Peripheral lesions" restate, albeit slightly more descriptively, what was already written prior. I am not well-versed enough in stylistic conventions to make the decision myself of which to keep or how to merge the two. On that note, I would also like to preemptively apologize for the style of this comment.

Add topic