NHE wrote:
Cece wrote:
But that wouldn't be expected, for us, because with CCSVI it can be assumed that our IJVs are not carrying 95% of the body's blood flow but some smaller fraction, due to the blockages.
Perhaps length of healing time of peach fuzz cuts near the jugular is an indicator of how stenosed our jugulars are?
If there really was something to this, it could be measured before and after the procedure and then tested if restenosis is suspected. If healing time had returned to pre-procedure levels (aka was fast and had been slower post-procedure), then that would be a cheap indicator of restenosis.
It might be a stretch. It's all based on a quote from wikipedia too. But it's a new angle.
I find it hard to imagine how a small, shallow skin cut could be affected by the IJV.
NHE
Civic, thanks! -- a small, shallow facial cut is actually very interesting as related to venous anatomy.
NHE, I agree with you.
Arteries are usually deeper than veins which means that most small, shallow facial skin cuts would not be to an artery but would be to one of the Facial Veins which drain directly into the External Jugular Veins (EJVs).
So the EJVs, which drain directly into the Brachiocephalic Vein, explain a major portion of the 5% of blood that doesn't use the IJVs. The Vertebral Veins also drain directly into the Brachiocephalic Vein and would explain another major portion of the 5%. The IJVs do not affect a small, shallow facial skin cut nor vice-versa.
Yes? No? Maybe? Sometimes? Always? Never? Some of the above? All of the above? None of the above?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
