Gallbladder and kidney removal.

[Rockalbert]

I heard from my aunt that there are some Asian ayurvedic treatments for kidney stones.

[Oldgringo]

My surgeon told me of folks who fail to get them removed in time and often show up in emergency rooms with all the symptoms of a heart attack.

That's exactly what happened to me while we were in Polson, MT a couple years ago. It wasn't a heart attack, it was an infected gallbladder. The surgery took some four hours and they kept me in the hospital overnight. Upon release, I wore a drainage bag for two weeks and it stunk bad.

So, as was suggested above, don't dally, just do it.

[MaduroBU]

I can't give you medical advice, but i give you a few facts to consider and bring up with your doc.

A laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a relatively minor procedure, and the biggest risk is that they're forced to open you up with a subcostal incision. The other risks, like biliary strictures, missing a stone and provoking cholecdocholithiasis, and ascending cholangitis are all much higher if you're getting it done because of an acute problem (an inflamed gallbladder or a stone lodged in the common bile duct).

A laparoscopic nephrectomy is a significantly riskier procedure and as a result most failed kidneys still inhabit their original owners, even those who have gotten transplants.

A final point, fully 1/3 of humans have gallstones.

[Abraham]

MaduroBU,

You speak doctor quite well, is that because...?

[mrvmax]

I can't give you medical advice, but i give you a few facts to consider and bring up with your doc.

A laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a relatively minor procedure, and the biggest risk is that they're forced to open you up with a subcostal incision. The other risks, like biliary strictures, missing a stone and provoking cholecdocholithiasis, and ascending cholangitis are all much higher if you're getting it done because of an acute problem (an inflamed gallbladder or a stone lodged in the common bile duct).

A laparoscopic nephrectomy is a significantly riskier procedure and as a result most failed kidneys still inhabit their original owners, even those who have gotten transplants.

A final point, fully 1/3 of humans have gallstones.

I would think the bigger risk is the surgeon screwing up and cutting something they should not have cut (I am referring specifically to the laparoscopic cholecystectomy) . I had my gall bladder removed last month and prior to that my surgeon told me of another surgeon that works out of Clear Lake regional that did just that - he cut something he should not have and the 1 hour surgery turned into 6 hours. Of course he would not tell me the name of that surgeon but he said he would never step into the OR with that doctor (the surgeon that screwed up called my surgeon for help and he refused to help him. He said he did not want to end up in court so it must have been a pretty bad screw up). I would do my best to vet the surgeon and the anesthesiologist since you are trusting both of them.

[grim-bob]

Had my gall bladder out after several smaller attacks over several years. Major attack put me down to a non-functional state right in the middle of a big presentation. Hurt worse than anything else I've had and I could barely make it back to my desk after stopping the presentation. As soon as the gall bladder was removed I immediately could tell the difference. I knew something was still off though and had to have another procedure a couple days later as I had stones blocking the bile duct also. As soon as that was done I felt completely new. Biggest issue is eating a rich meal you might need to think about your next pit stop within the next hour or so. That's the only side effect I've had fortunately. Honestly, I wish I had taken care of it long before I did. Just have them check the bile ducts as well as you don't want it backing up and causing pancreas issues as others have mentioned.

[rotor]

I can't give you medical advice, but i give you a few facts to consider and bring up with your doc.

A laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a relatively minor procedure, and the biggest risk is that they're forced to open you up with a subcostal incision. The other risks, like biliary strictures, missing a stone and provoking cholecdocholithiasis, and ascending cholangitis are all much higher if you're getting it done because of an acute problem (an inflamed gallbladder or a stone lodged in the common bile duct).

A laparoscopic nephrectomy is a significantly riskier procedure and as a result most failed kidneys still inhabit their original owners, even those who have gotten transplants.

A final point, fully 1/3 of humans have gallstones.

I would think the bigger risk is the surgeon screwing up and cutting something they should not have cut (I am referring specifically to the laparoscopic cholecystectomy) . I had my gall bladder removed last month and prior to that my surgeon told me of another surgeon that works out of Clear Lake regional that did just that - he cut something he should not have and the 1 hour surgery turned into 6 hours. Of course he would not tell me the name of that surgeon but he said he would never step into the OR with that doctor (the surgeon that screwed up called my surgeon for help and he refused to help him. He said he did not want to end up in court so it must have been a pretty bad screw up). I would do my best to vet the surgeon and the anesthesiologist since you are trusting both of them.

I would not have used your surgeon either. A doctor that inflates himself and talks poorly about another doctor and refuses to help in an emergency is not a doctor I would use. After all, he would be refusing to help a patient that needs help. Injury to the common duct is a known risk of gall bladder surgery and any doctor doing that surgery can be involved. Some doctors think they are god and brag about it, until they get into trouble. Human anatomy is different in each person and if your doctor has not injured the common duct yet, give him time. Those of you that delay surgery and end up with scar tissue which obscures the anatomy even more are more likely to have a complication.

[mrvmax]

I can't give you medical advice, but i give you a few facts to consider and bring up with your doc.

A laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a relatively minor procedure, and the biggest risk is that they're forced to open you up with a subcostal incision. The other risks, like biliary strictures, missing a stone and provoking cholecdocholithiasis, and ascending cholangitis are all much higher if you're getting it done because of an acute problem (an inflamed gallbladder or a stone lodged in the common bile duct).

A laparoscopic nephrectomy is a significantly riskier procedure and as a result most failed kidneys still inhabit their original owners, even those who have gotten transplants.

A final point, fully 1/3 of humans have gallstones.

I would think the bigger risk is the surgeon screwing up and cutting something they should not have cut (I am referring specifically to the laparoscopic cholecystectomy) . I had my gall bladder removed last month and prior to that my surgeon told me of another surgeon that works out of Clear Lake regional that did just that - he cut something he should not have and the 1 hour surgery turned into 6 hours. Of course he would not tell me the name of that surgeon but he said he would never step into the OR with that doctor (the surgeon that screwed up called my surgeon for help and he refused to help him. He said he did not want to end up in court so it must have been a pretty bad screw up). I would do my best to vet the surgeon and the anesthesiologist since you are trusting both of them.

I would not have used your surgeon either. A doctor that inflates himself and talks poorly about another doctor and refuses to help in an emergency is not a doctor I would use. After all, he would be refusing to help a patient that needs help. Injury to the common duct is a known risk of gall bladder surgery and any doctor doing that surgery can be involved. Some doctors think they are god and brag about it, until they get into trouble. Human anatomy is different in each person and if your doctor has not injured the common duct yet, give him time. Those of you that delay surgery and end up with scar tissue which obscures the anatomy even more are more likely to have a complication.

He wasn't inflating himself, he was telling me of the risks of the surgery and had just been asked to fix the other surgeons screw up. He said he didn't want to get involved in any possible litigation so he refused to get involved at that point and it seems as if that doctor has been involved in litigation before. He also stated that the problem needed to be corrected during another surgery, not at that time (I do not recall the reason). I didn't write all the details but I do not think you should jump to conclusions either. I specifically asked about how many times he had problems with this type of surgery so he answered me and explained.

[rotor]

He wasn't inflating himself, he was telling me of the risks of the surgery and had just been asked to fix the other surgeons screw up. He said he didn't want to get involved in any possible litigation so he refused to get involved at that point and it seems as if that doctor has been involved in litigation before. He also stated that the problem needed to be corrected during another surgery, not at that time (I do not recall the reason). I didn't write all the details but I do not think you should jump to conclusions either. I specifically asked about how many times he had problems with this type of surgery so he answered me and explained.

If a doctor consults another doctor in an emergency "to fix the other surgeons screw up" as you put it and he/she refuses to help he/she is putting the patient in jeopardy. Failure to respond to an emergency consult is reason enough to lose hospital privileges. The place to weed out deficient doctors is not while a patient desperately needs help in the operating room, it is in the hospital's committee process. Sorry, I have no respect for your doctor's ethics or great skill.

[mrvmax]

He wasn't inflating himself, he was telling me of the risks of the surgery and had just been asked to fix the other surgeons screw up. He said he didn't want to get involved in any possible litigation so he refused to get involved at that point and it seems as if that doctor has been involved in litigation before. He also stated that the problem needed to be corrected during another surgery, not at that time (I do not recall the reason). I didn't write all the details but I do not think you should jump to conclusions either. I specifically asked about how many times he had problems with this type of surgery so he answered me and explained.

If a doctor consults another doctor in an emergency "to fix the other surgeons screw up" as you put it and he/she refuses to help he/she is putting the patient in jeopardy. Failure to respond to an emergency consult is reason enough to lose hospital privileges. The place to weed out deficient doctors is not while a patient desperately needs help in the operating room, it is in the hospital's committee process. Sorry, I have no respect for your doctor's ethics or great skill.

I never said the place to weed out doctors was in an emergency, I said quite the contrary. My original point to the OP stands - mistakes by doctors are the highest risk with surgery so vet them as well as you can prior to the procedure. Read reviews, ask your referring physician, question them as best you can and get second and third opinions. The surgery may be routine but people die from routine surgeries too. I’ve run across too many bad doctors in my life to blindly trust them. I don’t see the point in debating it back and forth, I’m just giving my opinion from my experience with surgeries my wife and I have had as well as other family members and close friends. My best wishes to the OP with his health issues.

[rotor]

He wasn't inflating himself, he was telling me of the risks of the surgery and had just been asked to fix the other surgeons screw up. He said he didn't want to get involved in any possible litigation so he refused to get involved at that point and it seems as if that doctor has been involved in litigation before. He also stated that the problem needed to be corrected during another surgery, not at that time (I do not recall the reason). I didn't write all the details but I do not think you should jump to conclusions either. I specifically asked about how many times he had problems with this type of surgery so he answered me and explained.

If a doctor consults another doctor in an emergency "to fix the other surgeons screw up" as you put it and he/she refuses to help he/she is putting the patient in jeopardy. Failure to respond to an emergency consult is reason enough to lose hospital privileges. The place to weed out deficient doctors is not while a patient desperately needs help in the operating room, it is in the hospital's committee process. Sorry, I have no respect for your doctor's ethics or great skill.

I never said the place to weed out doctors was in an emergency, I said quite the contrary. My original point to the OP stands - mistakes by doctors are the highest risk with surgery so vet them as well as you can prior to the procedure. Read reviews, ask your referring physician, question them as best you can and get second and third opinions. The surgery may be routine but people die from routine surgeries too. I’ve run across too many bad doctors in my life to blindly trust them. I don’t see the point in debating it back and forth, I’m just giving my opinion from my experience with surgeries my wife and I have had as well as other family members and close friends. My best wishes to the OP with his health issues.

All very good ideas but..... Mistakes by doctors are not the highest risk of surgery. Surgery by itself without any mistake is a risk. Where do you go to read reviews? The internet? I know of no reliable place to find a review of the quality of a doctor including the referring physician. Did you not notice that the referring physician never refers outside of his group. Get second opinions? What makes you think that the second opinion is worth anything? My point being to all of this is that there is virtually no place to really find out if your doctor is great or a washout.

[mrvmax]

He wasn't inflating himself, he was telling me of the risks of the surgery and had just been asked to fix the other surgeons screw up. He said he didn't want to get involved in any possible litigation so he refused to get involved at that point and it seems as if that doctor has been involved in litigation before. He also stated that the problem needed to be corrected during another surgery, not at that time (I do not recall the reason). I didn't write all the details but I do not think you should jump to conclusions either. I specifically asked about how many times he had problems with this type of surgery so he answered me and explained.

If a doctor consults another doctor in an emergency "to fix the other surgeons screw up" as you put it and he/she refuses to help he/she is putting the patient in jeopardy. Failure to respond to an emergency consult is reason enough to lose hospital privileges. The place to weed out deficient doctors is not while a patient desperately needs help in the operating room, it is in the hospital's committee process. Sorry, I have no respect for your doctor's ethics or great skill.

I never said the place to weed out doctors was in an emergency, I said quite the contrary. My original point to the OP stands - mistakes by doctors are the highest risk with surgery so vet them as well as you can prior to the procedure. Read reviews, ask your referring physician, question them as best you can and get second and third opinions. The surgery may be routine but people die from routine surgeries too. I’ve run across too many bad doctors in my life to blindly trust them. I don’t see the point in debating it back and forth, I’m just giving my opinion from my experience with surgeries my wife and I have had as well as other family members and close friends. My best wishes to the OP with his health issues.

All very good ideas but..... Mistakes by doctors are not the highest risk of surgery. Surgery by itself without any mistake is a risk. Where do you go to read reviews? The internet? I know of no reliable place to find a review of the quality of a doctor including the referring physician. Did you not notice that the referring physician never refers outside of his group. Get second opinions? What makes you think that the second opinion is worth anything? My point being to all of this is that there is virtually no place to really find out if your doctor is great or a washout.

When I have surgery I’m not worried about risks out of my control so that is why I say mistakes by doctors are my highest risk. You can quote the percentages of different complications but who cares how high the risk is if I can’t do anything about it? There is no use worrying about risks you cannot mitigate but the doctors that perform my surgery are what are under my control. FYI I have acquaintances working in the medical field so I usually go to them to see what doctors they recommend since they work with and around them and I also ask people who have had similar surgeries that have first hand experience. I’m not sure what better method you have, you appear to have a medical background so let us know of a better way. It’s not like there is no possible way to check the experience and background of doctors, despite your sarcasm a lot of info is available on the web. I’m not debating you anymore on this, in the end we both have our opinions and I was trying to share my experience with the OP - not debate you.