Re: MRI is more definitive

[Guest guest]

Skye:

I second Nicola's comment. Most MDs seem to prefer the imaging from an MRI to

an ultrasound. I

presume it is not used more because its expence appears to be 20X that of an US

(my bill was

$2,600+). I had two US (Jan01, Mar01) and MRI (May01).

It was only through the MRI that they could determine the real nature of the

fibroid. It was not, as

the US reports had suggested (one, large dominant fibroid), but rather a large

diffuse area of fibrous

tissue (multiple smaller fibroids) completely replacing the entire anterior and

fundus of my uterus

with fibrous stuff. (i.e. no healthy, normal uterine tissue was seen in these

areas!). This was a

far different story than what had been portrayed from the two US reports.

Good luck, Skye!

Marilyn Arnold

Falls Church, VA

njc@... wrote:

> Dear Sky,

>

> Have you not had an MRI? The drs had difficulty in diagnosing my

> intramural fibroid from all the onthers, incl. saline ultrasound. An

> MRI would also show up more info. about the dip.

>

> Nichola. (UK)

>

>

> > Hi Ladies,

> > Had my last test yesterday! Saline Sono-this test hurt

> > worse then the others that I have had! They include,

> > Hysteroscopy, hysterosalpingogram, the endo biopsy and

> > the transvaginal sono. Ok, at this point I am

> > extremely angry! No answers! Except for, 2nd Dr.

> > states, " well according to the HSG you do have a small

> > defect, and I suspect that it's a submucosal from the

> > way the x-ray looks from the HSG. " My first Dr.

> > performed a transvaginal sono and had originally

> > thought that I had a submucosal but after he (first

> > Dr.) did the hysteroscopy he ruled that out! Now, my

> > 2nd Dr. has all the info from the 1st dr. and has been

> > basing some of his findings on the 1st Dr. Until

> > yesterday, after the saline sono I provided him with a

> > copy of the hysteroscopy, (did this on purpose to see

> > what he would diagnose) During the saline sono, the

> > techs says it looks like a subserosal and the Dr.

> > started disagreeing with her and said no, it looks

> > like a intramural, part submucosal, then he goes on to

> > point out that I have a small dip at the top of my

> > uterus. All this is said and done, he discusses what

> > we need to do next. I asked him point blank, " are

> > these findings causing me not to get pg? " he says,

> > " no " but I want to do an operative hysteroscopy and I

> > ask why? what happens if you get in there and I don't

> > have a submucosal fibriod then what? He says, well I

> > can fix the small dip at the top of your uterus, I

> > mean this dip is extremely small and has never been

> > mentioned before! Then I tell him, I know that I have

> > several intramural fibroids and the operative hyst.

> > will not address them, he said yah, and you read way

> > toooo much! Well excuse me, but shouldn't I? Not to

> > mention if he would have taken the time to thread the

> > catheter into my cervix he wouldn't have had to use a

> > damn tenaculum, that caused heavy bleeding! (1st doc

> > at least took care of the bleeding from the tenaculum

> > from the hysteroscopoy by applying nitrate and

> > pressure) The report that the sono tech gave me is

> > extremeley vague and only mentions one fibroid at 2.7

> > cm. This Dr. wanst me to make a decision next month,

> > using drugs to hyperstimulate my ovaries or having the

> > operative hysteroscopy. It sounds like he wants me to

> > hurry and come back in, in fear that I might get pg on

> > my own! And see my ?'s about giving all my previous

> > records to a new Dr. as he is basing all his findings

> > on a report that had the initial diagnosis, and later

> > on a test (diagnostic hysteroscopy confirms no, you

> > don't have a submucosal fibroid!) What now, I'm tired

> > of all of this and certainly don't want anymore test

> > ran! I still don't have any answers! Help! Sorry this

> > is so long! Have to vent this somewhere! and others

> > who don't have fibriods just don't understand the S---

> > that we go through! Everyone say relax maybe you're

> > not getting pg because you are trying! BULL! Anyway,

> > thanks for listening and would like to hear your

> > replies! Oh, my tubes are fine and 2nd Dr says I won't

> > need to do a laporoscopy because I'm not worried about

> > them, HSG confirmed yes they are fine and open..I

> > already told him this as I had an m/c last Feb. 2000!

> > Ok, now What??? SKY

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the info.

I've heard controversy on the MRI and

diagnosing..Maybe I should request it...Might as well,

I've had all the other tests! UGH! Thanks again, SKY

--- Marilyn Arnold wrote:

> Skye:

>

> I second Nicola's comment. Most MDs seem to prefer

> the imaging from an MRI to an ultrasound. I

> presume it is not used more because its expence

> appears to be 20X that of an US (my bill was

> $2,600+). I had two US (Jan01, Mar01) and MRI

> (May01).

>

> It was only through the MRI that they could

> determine the real nature of the fibroid. It was

> not, as

> the US reports had suggested (one, large dominant

> fibroid), but rather a large diffuse area of fibrous

> tissue (multiple smaller fibroids) completely

> replacing the entire anterior and fundus of my

> uterus

> with fibrous stuff. (i.e. no healthy, normal

> uterine tissue was seen in these areas!). This was

> a

> far different story than what had been portrayed

> from the two US reports.

>

> Good luck, Skye!

>

> Marilyn Arnold

> Falls Church, VA

>

>

>

>

> njc@... wrote:

>

> > Dear Sky,

> >

> > Have you not had an MRI? The drs had difficulty in

> diagnosing my

> > intramural fibroid from all the onthers, incl.

> saline ultrasound. An

> > MRI would also show up more info. about the dip.

> >

> > Nichola. (UK)

> >

> >

> > > Hi Ladies,

> > > Had my last test yesterday! Saline Sono-this

> test hurt

> > > worse then the others that I have had! They

> include,

> > > Hysteroscopy, hysterosalpingogram, the endo

> biopsy and

> > > the transvaginal sono. Ok, at this point I am

> > > extremely angry! No answers! Except for, 2nd Dr.

> > > states, " well according to the HSG you do have a

> small

> > > defect, and I suspect that it's a submucosal

> from the

> > > way the x-ray looks from the HSG. " My first Dr.

> > > performed a transvaginal sono and had originally

> > > thought that I had a submucosal but after he

> (first

> > > Dr.) did the hysteroscopy he ruled that out!

> Now, my

> > > 2nd Dr. has all the info from the 1st dr. and

> has been

> > > basing some of his findings on the 1st Dr. Until

> > > yesterday, after the saline sono I provided him

> with a

> > > copy of the hysteroscopy, (did this on purpose

> to see

> > > what he would diagnose) During the saline sono,

> the

> > > techs says it looks like a subserosal and the

> Dr.

> > > started disagreeing with her and said no, it

> looks

> > > like a intramural, part submucosal, then he goes

> on to

> > > point out that I have a small dip at the top of

> my

> > > uterus. All this is said and done, he discusses

> what

> > > we need to do next. I asked him point blank,

> " are

> > > these findings causing me not to get pg? " he

> says,

> > > " no " but I want to do an operative hysteroscopy

> and I

> > > ask why? what happens if you get in there and I

> don't

> > > have a submucosal fibriod then what? He says,

> well I

> > > can fix the small dip at the top of your uterus,

> I

> > > mean this dip is extremely small and has never

> been

> > > mentioned before! Then I tell him, I know that I

> have

> > > several intramural fibroids and the operative

> hyst.

> > > will not address them, he said yah, and you read

> way

> > > toooo much! Well excuse me, but shouldn't I? Not

> to

> > > mention if he would have taken the time to

> thread the

> > > catheter into my cervix he wouldn't have had to

> use a

> > > damn tenaculum, that caused heavy bleeding!

> (1st doc

> > > at least took care of the bleeding from the

> tenaculum

> > > from the hysteroscopoy by applying nitrate and

> > > pressure) The report that the sono tech gave me

> is

> > > extremeley vague and only mentions one fibroid

> at 2.7

> > > cm. This Dr. wanst me to make a decision next

> month,

> > > using drugs to hyperstimulate my ovaries or

> having the

> > > operative hysteroscopy. It sounds like he wants

> me to

> > > hurry and come back in, in fear that I might get

> pg on

> > > my own! And see my ?'s about giving all my

> previous

> > > records to a new Dr. as he is basing all his

> findings

> > > on a report that had the initial diagnosis, and

> later

> > > on a test (diagnostic hysteroscopy confirms no,

> you

> > > don't have a submucosal fibroid!) What now, I'm

> tired

> > > of all of this and certainly don't want anymore

> test

> > > ran! I still don't have any answers! Help! Sorry

> this

> > > is so long! Have to vent this somewhere! and

> others

> > > who don't have fibriods just don't understand

> the S---

> > > that we go through! Everyone say relax maybe

> you're

> > > not getting pg because you are trying! BULL!

> Anyway,

> > > thanks for listening and would like to hear your

> > > replies! Oh, my tubes are fine and 2nd Dr says I

> won't

> > > need to do a laporoscopy because I'm not worried

> about

> > > them, HSG confirmed yes they are fine and

> open..I

> > > already told him this as I had an m/c last Feb.

> 2000!

> > > Ok, now What??? SKY

> > >

> > >

> __________________________________________________

> > >

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the info.

I've heard controversy on the MRI and

diagnosing..Maybe I should request it...Might as well,

I've had all the other tests! UGH! Thanks again, SKY

--- Marilyn Arnold wrote:

> Skye:

>

> I second Nicola's comment. Most MDs seem to prefer

> the imaging from an MRI to an ultrasound. I

> presume it is not used more because its expence

> appears to be 20X that of an US (my bill was

> $2,600+). I had two US (Jan01, Mar01) and MRI

> (May01).

>

> It was only through the MRI that they could

> determine the real nature of the fibroid. It was

> not, as

> the US reports had suggested (one, large dominant

> fibroid), but rather a large diffuse area of fibrous

> tissue (multiple smaller fibroids) completely

> replacing the entire anterior and fundus of my

> uterus

> with fibrous stuff. (i.e. no healthy, normal

> uterine tissue was seen in these areas!). This was

> a

> far different story than what had been portrayed

> from the two US reports.

>

> Good luck, Skye!

>

> Marilyn Arnold

> Falls Church, VA

>

>

>

>

> njc@... wrote:

>

> > Dear Sky,

> >

> > Have you not had an MRI? The drs had difficulty in

> diagnosing my

> > intramural fibroid from all the onthers, incl.

> saline ultrasound. An

> > MRI would also show up more info. about the dip.

> >

> > Nichola. (UK)

> >

> >

> > > Hi Ladies,

> > > Had my last test yesterday! Saline Sono-this

> test hurt

> > > worse then the others that I have had! They

> include,

> > > Hysteroscopy, hysterosalpingogram, the endo

> biopsy and

> > > the transvaginal sono. Ok, at this point I am

> > > extremely angry! No answers! Except for, 2nd Dr.

> > > states, " well according to the HSG you do have a

> small

> > > defect, and I suspect that it's a submucosal

> from the

> > > way the x-ray looks from the HSG. " My first Dr.

> > > performed a transvaginal sono and had originally

> > > thought that I had a submucosal but after he

> (first

> > > Dr.) did the hysteroscopy he ruled that out!

> Now, my

> > > 2nd Dr. has all the info from the 1st dr. and

> has been

> > > basing some of his findings on the 1st Dr. Until

> > > yesterday, after the saline sono I provided him

> with a

> > > copy of the hysteroscopy, (did this on purpose

> to see

> > > what he would diagnose) During the saline sono,

> the

> > > techs says it looks like a subserosal and the

> Dr.

> > > started disagreeing with her and said no, it

> looks

> > > like a intramural, part submucosal, then he goes

> on to

> > > point out that I have a small dip at the top of

> my

> > > uterus. All this is said and done, he discusses

> what

> > > we need to do next. I asked him point blank,

> " are

> > > these findings causing me not to get pg? " he

> says,

> > > " no " but I want to do an operative hysteroscopy

> and I

> > > ask why? what happens if you get in there and I

> don't

> > > have a submucosal fibriod then what? He says,

> well I

> > > can fix the small dip at the top of your uterus,

> I

> > > mean this dip is extremely small and has never

> been

> > > mentioned before! Then I tell him, I know that I

> have

> > > several intramural fibroids and the operative

> hyst.

> > > will not address them, he said yah, and you read

> way

> > > toooo much! Well excuse me, but shouldn't I? Not

> to

> > > mention if he would have taken the time to

> thread the

> > > catheter into my cervix he wouldn't have had to

> use a

> > > damn tenaculum, that caused heavy bleeding!

> (1st doc

> > > at least took care of the bleeding from the

> tenaculum

> > > from the hysteroscopoy by applying nitrate and

> > > pressure) The report that the sono tech gave me

> is

> > > extremeley vague and only mentions one fibroid

> at 2.7

> > > cm. This Dr. wanst me to make a decision next

> month,

> > > using drugs to hyperstimulate my ovaries or

> having the

> > > operative hysteroscopy. It sounds like he wants

> me to

> > > hurry and come back in, in fear that I might get

> pg on

> > > my own! And see my ?'s about giving all my

> previous

> > > records to a new Dr. as he is basing all his

> findings

> > > on a report that had the initial diagnosis, and

> later

> > > on a test (diagnostic hysteroscopy confirms no,

> you

> > > don't have a submucosal fibroid!) What now, I'm

> tired

> > > of all of this and certainly don't want anymore

> test

> > > ran! I still don't have any answers! Help! Sorry

> this

> > > is so long! Have to vent this somewhere! and

> others

> > > who don't have fibriods just don't understand

> the S---

> > > that we go through! Everyone say relax maybe

> you're

> > > not getting pg because you are trying! BULL!

> Anyway,

> > > thanks for listening and would like to hear your

> > > replies! Oh, my tubes are fine and 2nd Dr says I

> won't

> > > need to do a laporoscopy because I'm not worried

> about

> > > them, HSG confirmed yes they are fine and

> open..I

> > > already told him this as I had an m/c last Feb.

> 2000!

> > > Ok, now What??? SKY

> > >

> > >

> __________________________________________________

> > >

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the info.

I've heard controversy on the MRI and

diagnosing..Maybe I should request it...Might as well,

I've had all the other tests! UGH! Thanks again, SKY

--- Marilyn Arnold wrote:

> Skye:

>

> I second Nicola's comment. Most MDs seem to prefer

> the imaging from an MRI to an ultrasound. I

> presume it is not used more because its expence

> appears to be 20X that of an US (my bill was

> $2,600+). I had two US (Jan01, Mar01) and MRI

> (May01).

>

> It was only through the MRI that they could

> determine the real nature of the fibroid. It was

> not, as

> the US reports had suggested (one, large dominant

> fibroid), but rather a large diffuse area of fibrous

> tissue (multiple smaller fibroids) completely

> replacing the entire anterior and fundus of my

> uterus

> with fibrous stuff. (i.e. no healthy, normal

> uterine tissue was seen in these areas!). This was

> a

> far different story than what had been portrayed

> from the two US reports.

>

> Good luck, Skye!

>

> Marilyn Arnold

> Falls Church, VA

>

>

>

>

> njc@... wrote:

>

> > Dear Sky,

> >

> > Have you not had an MRI? The drs had difficulty in

> diagnosing my

> > intramural fibroid from all the onthers, incl.

> saline ultrasound. An

> > MRI would also show up more info. about the dip.

> >

> > Nichola. (UK)

> >

> >

> > > Hi Ladies,

> > > Had my last test yesterday! Saline Sono-this

> test hurt

> > > worse then the others that I have had! They

> include,

> > > Hysteroscopy, hysterosalpingogram, the endo

> biopsy and

> > > the transvaginal sono. Ok, at this point I am

> > > extremely angry! No answers! Except for, 2nd Dr.

> > > states, " well according to the HSG you do have a

> small

> > > defect, and I suspect that it's a submucosal

> from the

> > > way the x-ray looks from the HSG. " My first Dr.

> > > performed a transvaginal sono and had originally

> > > thought that I had a submucosal but after he

> (first

> > > Dr.) did the hysteroscopy he ruled that out!

> Now, my

> > > 2nd Dr. has all the info from the 1st dr. and

> has been

> > > basing some of his findings on the 1st Dr. Until

> > > yesterday, after the saline sono I provided him

> with a

> > > copy of the hysteroscopy, (did this on purpose

> to see

> > > what he would diagnose) During the saline sono,

> the

> > > techs says it looks like a subserosal and the

> Dr.

> > > started disagreeing with her and said no, it

> looks

> > > like a intramural, part submucosal, then he goes

> on to

> > > point out that I have a small dip at the top of

> my

> > > uterus. All this is said and done, he discusses

> what

> > > we need to do next. I asked him point blank,

> " are

> > > these findings causing me not to get pg? " he

> says,

> > > " no " but I want to do an operative hysteroscopy

> and I

> > > ask why? what happens if you get in there and I

> don't

> > > have a submucosal fibriod then what? He says,

> well I

> > > can fix the small dip at the top of your uterus,

> I

> > > mean this dip is extremely small and has never

> been

> > > mentioned before! Then I tell him, I know that I

> have

> > > several intramural fibroids and the operative

> hyst.

> > > will not address them, he said yah, and you read

> way

> > > toooo much! Well excuse me, but shouldn't I? Not

> to

> > > mention if he would have taken the time to

> thread the

> > > catheter into my cervix he wouldn't have had to

> use a

> > > damn tenaculum, that caused heavy bleeding!

> (1st doc

> > > at least took care of the bleeding from the

> tenaculum

> > > from the hysteroscopoy by applying nitrate and

> > > pressure) The report that the sono tech gave me

> is

> > > extremeley vague and only mentions one fibroid

> at 2.7

> > > cm. This Dr. wanst me to make a decision next

> month,

> > > using drugs to hyperstimulate my ovaries or

> having the

> > > operative hysteroscopy. It sounds like he wants

> me to

> > > hurry and come back in, in fear that I might get

> pg on

> > > my own! And see my ?'s about giving all my

> previous

> > > records to a new Dr. as he is basing all his

> findings

> > > on a report that had the initial diagnosis, and

> later

> > > on a test (diagnostic hysteroscopy confirms no,

> you

> > > don't have a submucosal fibroid!) What now, I'm

> tired

> > > of all of this and certainly don't want anymore

> test

> > > ran! I still don't have any answers! Help! Sorry

> this

> > > is so long! Have to vent this somewhere! and

> others

> > > who don't have fibriods just don't understand

> the S---

> > > that we go through! Everyone say relax maybe

> you're

> > > not getting pg because you are trying! BULL!

> Anyway,

> > > thanks for listening and would like to hear your

> > > replies! Oh, my tubes are fine and 2nd Dr says I

> won't

> > > need to do a laporoscopy because I'm not worried

> about

> > > them, HSG confirmed yes they are fine and

> open..I

> > > already told him this as I had an m/c last Feb.

> 2000!

> > > Ok, now What??? SKY

> > >

> > >

> __________________________________________________

> > >

[Guest guest]

---

> I too agree that MRI is more definitive. I had US which showed

ovarian neoplasm and had to have MRI which showed the mass to be a

pedunculated subserousal fibroid. So, try and have that MRI.

Margie

[Guest guest]

---

> I too agree that MRI is more definitive. I had US which showed

ovarian neoplasm and had to have MRI which showed the mass to be a

pedunculated subserousal fibroid. So, try and have that MRI.

Margie

[Guest guest]

Sky:

In response to your reply (below): At least the MRI is not invasive or painful!

They just put you on

a tray and put you into this machine which sounds like jack-hammers going off

around you for an hour

or so. It was a different experience, but before I left they showed me several

images from the

computer screen they were monitoring as it was being taken. One showed this

huge round thing -- " oh,

is that my uterus? What? That is the fibroid? Oh god. Where's the uterus? "

They could not see any

healthy uterine tissue -- all replaced by fibrous stuff. Yuck! It was scary

and the report I picked

up the next day was the beginning of my discovery that probably the only option

I had left was a

hyst. So, it gave me the answers I needed to make a decision, just not the

results that I wanted.

Don't remember where you are, but if you are claustrophibic, you'll want to try

and find an open MRI.

And, you may want to ask an IR which place(s) he/she recommends, as Dr. Spies

(the embo man on the

recent MSNBC clip sent to this list) only wanted images from 3 facilities in the

DC metropolitan

area. Only one had the open MRI.

Also, check w/your insurance company about pre-authorization. I didn't,

assuming it was covered, and

now have this notice requesting medical necessity from the insurance company.

The bill was >$2,600,

so no small change! Hopefully it will get settled ... keep your fingers crossed

for me!

Good luck, Sky.

Marilyn

sky wrote:

> Thanks for the info.

> I've heard controversy on the MRI and

> diagnosing..Maybe I should request it...Might as well,

> I've had all the other tests! UGH! Thanks again, SKY

> --- Marilyn Arnold wrote:

> > Skye:

> >

> > I second Nicola's comment. Most MDs seem to prefer

> > the imaging from an MRI to an ultrasound. I

> > presume it is not used more because its expence

> > appears to be 20X that of an US (my bill was

> > $2,600+). I had two US (Jan01, Mar01) and MRI

> > (May01).

> >

> > It was only through the MRI that they could

> > determine the real nature of the fibroid. It was

> > not, as

> > the US reports had suggested (one, large dominant

> > fibroid), but rather a large diffuse area of fibrous

> > tissue (multiple smaller fibroids) completely

> > replacing the entire anterior and fundus of my

> > uterus

> > with fibrous stuff. (i.e. no healthy, normal

> > uterine tissue was seen in these areas!). This was

> > a

> > far different story than what had been portrayed

> > from the two US reports.

> >

> > Good luck, Skye!

> >

> > Marilyn Arnold

> > Falls Church, VA

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > njc@... wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Sky,

> > >

> > > Have you not had an MRI? The drs had difficulty in

> > diagnosing my

> > > intramural fibroid from all the onthers, incl.

> > saline ultrasound. An

> > > MRI would also show up more info. about the dip.

> > >

> > > Nichola. (UK)

> > >

> > >

> > > > Hi Ladies,

> > > > Had my last test yesterday! Saline Sono-this

> > test hurt

> > > > worse then the others that I have had! They

> > include,

> > > > Hysteroscopy, hysterosalpingogram, the endo

> > biopsy and

> > > > the transvaginal sono. Ok, at this point I am

> > > > extremely angry! No answers! Except for, 2nd Dr.

> > > > states, " well according to the HSG you do have a

> > small

> > > > defect, and I suspect that it's a submucosal

> > from the

> > > > way the x-ray looks from the HSG. " My first Dr.

> > > > performed a transvaginal sono and had originally

> > > > thought that I had a submucosal but after he

> > (first

> > > > Dr.) did the hysteroscopy he ruled that out!

> > Now, my

> > > > 2nd Dr. has all the info from the 1st dr. and

> > has been

> > > > basing some of his findings on the 1st Dr. Until

> > > > yesterday, after the saline sono I provided him

> > with a

> > > > copy of the hysteroscopy, (did this on purpose

> > to see

> > > > what he would diagnose) During the saline sono,

> > the

> > > > techs says it looks like a subserosal and the

> > Dr.

> > > > started disagreeing with her and said no, it

> > looks

> > > > like a intramural, part submucosal, then he goes

> > on to

> > > > point out that I have a small dip at the top of

> > my

> > > > uterus. All this is said and done, he discusses

> > what

> > > > we need to do next. I asked him point blank,

> > " are

> > > > these findings causing me not to get pg? " he

> > says,

> > > > " no " but I want to do an operative hysteroscopy

> > and I

> > > > ask why? what happens if you get in there and I

> > don't

> > > > have a submucosal fibriod then what? He says,

> > well I

> > > > can fix the small dip at the top of your uterus,

> > I

> > > > mean this dip is extremely small and has never

> > been

> > > > mentioned before! Then I tell him, I know that I

> > have

> > > > several intramural fibroids and the operative

> > hyst.

> > > > will not address them, he said yah, and you read

> > way

> > > > toooo much! Well excuse me, but shouldn't I? Not

> > to

> > > > mention if he would have taken the time to

> > thread the

> > > > catheter into my cervix he wouldn't have had to

> > use a

> > > > damn tenaculum, that caused heavy bleeding!

> > (1st doc

> > > > at least took care of the bleeding from the

> > tenaculum

> > > > from the hysteroscopoy by applying nitrate and

> > > > pressure) The report that the sono tech gave me

> > is

> > > > extremeley vague and only mentions one fibroid

> > at 2.7

> > > > cm. This Dr. wanst me to make a decision next

> > month,

> > > > using drugs to hyperstimulate my ovaries or

> > having the

> > > > operative hysteroscopy. It sounds like he wants

> > me to

> > > > hurry and come back in, in fear that I might get

> > pg on

> > > > my own! And see my ?'s about giving all my

> > previous

> > > > records to a new Dr. as he is basing all his

> > findings

> > > > on a report that had the initial diagnosis, and

> > later

> > > > on a test (diagnostic hysteroscopy confirms no,

> > you

> > > > don't have a submucosal fibroid!) What now, I'm

> > tired

> > > > of all of this and certainly don't want anymore

> > test

> > > > ran! I still don't have any answers! Help! Sorry

> > this

> > > > is so long! Have to vent this somewhere! and

> > others

> > > > who don't have fibriods just don't understand

> > the S---

> > > > that we go through! Everyone say relax maybe

> > you're

> > > > not getting pg because you are trying! BULL!

> > Anyway,

> > > > thanks for listening and would like to hear your

> > > > replies! Oh, my tubes are fine and 2nd Dr says I

> > won't

> > > > need to do a laporoscopy because I'm not worried

> > about

> > > > them, HSG confirmed yes they are fine and

> > open..I

> > > > already told him this as I had an m/c last Feb.

> > 2000!

> > > > Ok, now What??? SKY

> > > >

> > > >

> > __________________________________________________

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Sky:

In response to your reply (below): At least the MRI is not invasive or painful!

They just put you on

a tray and put you into this machine which sounds like jack-hammers going off

around you for an hour

or so. It was a different experience, but before I left they showed me several

images from the

computer screen they were monitoring as it was being taken. One showed this

huge round thing -- " oh,

is that my uterus? What? That is the fibroid? Oh god. Where's the uterus? "

They could not see any

healthy uterine tissue -- all replaced by fibrous stuff. Yuck! It was scary

and the report I picked

up the next day was the beginning of my discovery that probably the only option

I had left was a

hyst. So, it gave me the answers I needed to make a decision, just not the

results that I wanted.

Don't remember where you are, but if you are claustrophibic, you'll want to try

and find an open MRI.

And, you may want to ask an IR which place(s) he/she recommends, as Dr. Spies

(the embo man on the

recent MSNBC clip sent to this list) only wanted images from 3 facilities in the

DC metropolitan

area. Only one had the open MRI.

Also, check w/your insurance company about pre-authorization. I didn't,

assuming it was covered, and

now have this notice requesting medical necessity from the insurance company.

The bill was >$2,600,

so no small change! Hopefully it will get settled ... keep your fingers crossed

for me!

Good luck, Sky.

Marilyn

sky wrote:

> Thanks for the info.

> I've heard controversy on the MRI and

> diagnosing..Maybe I should request it...Might as well,

> I've had all the other tests! UGH! Thanks again, SKY

> --- Marilyn Arnold wrote:

> > Skye:

> >

> > I second Nicola's comment. Most MDs seem to prefer

> > the imaging from an MRI to an ultrasound. I

> > presume it is not used more because its expence

> > appears to be 20X that of an US (my bill was

> > $2,600+). I had two US (Jan01, Mar01) and MRI

> > (May01).

> >

> > It was only through the MRI that they could

> > determine the real nature of the fibroid. It was

> > not, as

> > the US reports had suggested (one, large dominant

> > fibroid), but rather a large diffuse area of fibrous

> > tissue (multiple smaller fibroids) completely

> > replacing the entire anterior and fundus of my

> > uterus

> > with fibrous stuff. (i.e. no healthy, normal

> > uterine tissue was seen in these areas!). This was

> > a

> > far different story than what had been portrayed

> > from the two US reports.

> >

> > Good luck, Skye!

> >

> > Marilyn Arnold

> > Falls Church, VA

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > njc@... wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Sky,

> > >

> > > Have you not had an MRI? The drs had difficulty in

> > diagnosing my

> > > intramural fibroid from all the onthers, incl.

> > saline ultrasound. An

> > > MRI would also show up more info. about the dip.

> > >

> > > Nichola. (UK)

> > >

> > >

> > > > Hi Ladies,

> > > > Had my last test yesterday! Saline Sono-this

> > test hurt

> > > > worse then the others that I have had! They

> > include,

> > > > Hysteroscopy, hysterosalpingogram, the endo

> > biopsy and

> > > > the transvaginal sono. Ok, at this point I am

> > > > extremely angry! No answers! Except for, 2nd Dr.

> > > > states, " well according to the HSG you do have a

> > small

> > > > defect, and I suspect that it's a submucosal

> > from the

> > > > way the x-ray looks from the HSG. " My first Dr.

> > > > performed a transvaginal sono and had originally

> > > > thought that I had a submucosal but after he

> > (first

> > > > Dr.) did the hysteroscopy he ruled that out!

> > Now, my

> > > > 2nd Dr. has all the info from the 1st dr. and

> > has been

> > > > basing some of his findings on the 1st Dr. Until

> > > > yesterday, after the saline sono I provided him

> > with a

> > > > copy of the hysteroscopy, (did this on purpose

> > to see

> > > > what he would diagnose) During the saline sono,

> > the

> > > > techs says it looks like a subserosal and the

> > Dr.

> > > > started disagreeing with her and said no, it

> > looks

> > > > like a intramural, part submucosal, then he goes

> > on to

> > > > point out that I have a small dip at the top of

> > my

> > > > uterus. All this is said and done, he discusses

> > what

> > > > we need to do next. I asked him point blank,

> > " are

> > > > these findings causing me not to get pg? " he

> > says,

> > > > " no " but I want to do an operative hysteroscopy

> > and I

> > > > ask why? what happens if you get in there and I

> > don't

> > > > have a submucosal fibriod then what? He says,

> > well I

> > > > can fix the small dip at the top of your uterus,

> > I

> > > > mean this dip is extremely small and has never

> > been

> > > > mentioned before! Then I tell him, I know that I

> > have

> > > > several intramural fibroids and the operative

> > hyst.

> > > > will not address them, he said yah, and you read

> > way

> > > > toooo much! Well excuse me, but shouldn't I? Not

> > to

> > > > mention if he would have taken the time to

> > thread the

> > > > catheter into my cervix he wouldn't have had to

> > use a

> > > > damn tenaculum, that caused heavy bleeding!

> > (1st doc

> > > > at least took care of the bleeding from the

> > tenaculum

> > > > from the hysteroscopoy by applying nitrate and

> > > > pressure) The report that the sono tech gave me

> > is

> > > > extremeley vague and only mentions one fibroid

> > at 2.7

> > > > cm. This Dr. wanst me to make a decision next

> > month,

> > > > using drugs to hyperstimulate my ovaries or

> > having the

> > > > operative hysteroscopy. It sounds like he wants

> > me to

> > > > hurry and come back in, in fear that I might get

> > pg on

> > > > my own! And see my ?'s about giving all my

> > previous

> > > > records to a new Dr. as he is basing all his

> > findings

> > > > on a report that had the initial diagnosis, and

> > later

> > > > on a test (diagnostic hysteroscopy confirms no,

> > you

> > > > don't have a submucosal fibroid!) What now, I'm

> > tired

> > > > of all of this and certainly don't want anymore

> > test

> > > > ran! I still don't have any answers! Help! Sorry

> > this

> > > > is so long! Have to vent this somewhere! and

> > others

> > > > who don't have fibriods just don't understand

> > the S---

> > > > that we go through! Everyone say relax maybe

> > you're

> > > > not getting pg because you are trying! BULL!

> > Anyway,

> > > > thanks for listening and would like to hear your

> > > > replies! Oh, my tubes are fine and 2nd Dr says I

> > won't

> > > > need to do a laporoscopy because I'm not worried

> > about

> > > > them, HSG confirmed yes they are fine and

> > open..I

> > > > already told him this as I had an m/c last Feb.

> > 2000!

> > > > Ok, now What??? SKY

> > > >

> > > >

> > __________________________________________________

> > > >