Confirmed, per source, Chiefs WR Tyreek Hill had a posterior SC (sternoclavicular) dislocation which was successfully reduced in the hospital. No surgery required. He will stay overnight.
Originally Posted by SupDock:
This does not vindicate you, you realize. "Damaging the aortic arch" does not mean the same thing as "cutting off blood supply to the aorta"
A very traumatic dislocation could tear through a lot of mediastinal structures, including the aortic arch, leading to devastating bleeding, morbidity, etc.
You don't understand, and I can't help you understand.
If you had said "nearly severing the aorta" or "nearly damaging the aorta" you would be right, but you didn't.
Oh FFS dude give it up, you are wrong just admit it.
Originally Posted by O.city:
Cutting off blood supply in the aortic arch is gonna cut off supply downchain, not to the actual arch.
It's semantical but in medicine wording is very important.
It in no way invalidates my original point about the injury, period. If you want to argue cutting off blood flow vs restricting blood flow vs whatever IDGAF, my point was there is a very real danger to the aorta and Doc's comments initially were in the context of the aorta not even being at risk.
Now he has backtracked it to semantics as far as what the actual term should be.
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
It in no way invalidates my original point about the injury, period. If you want to argue cutting off blood flow vs restricting blood flow vs whatever IDGAF, my point was there is a very real danger to the aorta and Doc's comments initially were in the context of the aorta not even being at risk.
Now he has backtracked it to semantics as far as what the actual term should be.
I'm done with stupid shit.
Medically, it just matters how it's said is all i'm saying. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
No its not. If the bone is putting pressure on the aortic arch what is happening? Are you telling me it wouldn't be restricting flow?
You are trying to play semantics which shows you are wrong. Sorry Doc you are a quack.
I am not playing semantics, what you said was wrong.
Being technically right is just fine with me, because wording is important when you are making medical claims.
You you are asserting that the clavicle somes to rest on the aortic arch without damaging the vessel wall? That would rupture the subclavian vessels leading to immediate death. At that point there would not even be blood to restrict. This is an assertion that just doesn't make sense.
Even if somehow that would impossibly happen, restricting blood flow is still not the same as "cutting off blood flow".
People have restricted blood flow in their carotid arteries all the time due to athersosclerosis and do just fine. That doesn't mean blood supply to their brain is "cut off" [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
It in no way invalidates my original point about the injury, period. If you want to argue cutting off blood flow vs restricting blood flow vs whatever IDGAF, my point was there is a very real danger to the aorta and Doc's comments initially were in the context of the aorta not even being at risk.
Now he has backtracked it to semantics as far as what the actual term should be.
I'm done with stupid shit.
But your original point was never injury, it was "cutting off blood flow". Which is the whole basis of the argument. The only one backtracking is you [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
Basically no one thinks it's going to be less than four weeks now.
Nobody should've ever thought it was going to be less than 4 weeks.
This injury happens every couple of years (with the same type of dislocation) and every guy that's had it has been between 4 and 6 weeks.
The prognosis was almost certainly going to be 4-6 weeks because even if the guy is superhuman and gets back in 3, you could never predict it.
Past is prologue and what not, gents. When you have a track record of similar injuries all requiring similar recoveries, just bank on this being in that ballpark. [Reply]