Guest guest Posted September 29, 2000 Report Share Posted September 29, 2000 FWIW Kim my ovarian cyst burst today - only found out I had it on Tuesday. Great! Feeling a bit sore everywhere, but know it won't go on for long. This is my second in a year! Often they just come up and then go down without anyone even knowing they are there - takes a couple of cycles though apparently. Oh yes and they won't treat anything under 4cm I think. Sue H. Kim Pike wrote: > Many thanks to everyone who sent their good wishes before and after my scan > on Tuesday this week. I'm seeing my GP next Thursday for the full report, > so I should know what happens next after that appointment. > > It's nice to have all my virtual friends supporting me and thinking of me. > It helps a great deal. > > Kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2000 Report Share Posted September 30, 2000 Sue H wrote: Oh yes and they won't treat anything under 4cm I think. Mine is 5cm and, as far as I am aware, was not present when I had my mirena coil fitted in June 1999 (well, the doctor never said as much after doing the pelvic exam. before fitting it and it was never picked up on the scans I had during both pregnancies). I guess I'll just have to wait and see... Kim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 Hello , I was resurfaced by Dr. Amstutz on 7/23, L hip. Prior to surgery we knew that i had a rather large cyst from x-ray taken in Jan. 02, there was a question if they would have enough good bone to work with so I gave him the option, If when he got in there he didn't like what he saw he could go with the THR, Now that was a bit unsettling, however, there is a new FDA approved, Metal- on Metal , larger ball and socket, THR . This was my option and I thought that I could live with that. I haven't heard this group talk much about this M-O-M THR . Basically, FDA has approved a metal cup for the acetabulum side of the implant. This also tells me that we are getting close to FDA approval for M-O-M resurf. good luck , Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2002 Report Share Posted September 4, 2002 > Hello , > I was resurfaced by Dr. Amstutz on 7/23, L hip. Prior to surgery we > knew that i had a rather large cyst from x-ray taken in Jan. 02, there was a > question if they would have enough good bone to work with so I gave him the > option, If when he got in there he didn't like what he saw he could go with > the THR, Now that was a bit unsettling, however, there is a new FDA > approved, Metal- on Metal , larger ball and socket, THR . This was my option > and I thought that I could live with that. I haven't heard this group talk > much about this M-O-M THR . Basically, FDA has approved a metal cup for > the acetabulum side of the implant. This also tells me that we are getting > close to FDA approval for M-O-M resurf. > > good luck , , I was interested in finding out who manufactures the M-O-M THR that has FDA approval. In my battle with CIGNA, I am attempting to whittle down their objections to using the non-FDA approved C+ device. Thanks.... Mike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2002 Report Share Posted September 4, 2002 I'm just getting started researching this stuff (so correct me if I'm leading the group astray) - there appear to be a number of M-o-M devices that have been FDA approved, from what I can see they all apear to be conventional THR type devices. Take a look at the following: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k001523.pdf http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k002379.pdf http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k993438.pdf http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k993569.pdf http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k974728.pdf Scroll through to the letter to the manufacturer from the FDA. Is this FDA approval? It appears to me to be . . . In each of these cases, the device appears to have been approved because of its similarity to a previously approved device. It's a real nightmare trying to find anything useful on the FDA web site! Let us know how you make out with CIGNA. > > , I was interested in finding out who manufactures the M-O-M THR > that has FDA approval. In my battle with CIGNA, I am attempting to > whittle down their objections to using the non-FDA approved C+ device. > > Thanks.... > Mike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2002 Report Share Posted September 5, 2002 There are four manufacturers with metal-on-metal articulating hips FDA approved 1) Sulzer-Medica (now Centerpulse), Metasul 2) Biomet, m2a 3) Medical 4) DePuy - > re:cyst > > > Hello , > I was resurfaced by Dr. Amstutz on 7/23, L hip. Prior to surgery we > knew that i had a rather large cyst from x-ray taken in Jan. 02, > there was a > question if they would have enough good bone to work with so I > gave him the > option, If when he got in there he didn't like what he saw he > could go with > the THR, Now that was a bit unsettling, however, there is a new FDA > approved, Metal- on Metal , larger ball and socket, THR . This > was my option > and I thought that I could live with that. I haven't heard this > group talk > much about this M-O-M THR . Basically, FDA has approved a > metal cup for > the acetabulum side of the implant. This also tells me that we > are getting > close to FDA approval for M-O-M resurf. > > good luck , > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2002 Report Share Posted September 5, 2002 I don't know about FDA approval, but you could take a look at the Exeter Hip (it's M/M), Mr Treacy uses it for THR. I think I also read on this site that Corin are making a larger diameter M/M THR too. Kathy > I'm just getting started researching this stuff (so correct me if I'm > leading the group astray) - there appear to be a number of M-o-M > devices that have been FDA approved, from what I can see they all > apear to be conventional THR type devices. Take a look at the > following: > > http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k001523.pdf > http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k002379.pdf > http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k993438.pdf > http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k993569.pdf > http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/k974728.pdf > > Scroll through to the letter to the manufacturer from the FDA. Is > this FDA approval? It appears to me to be . . . > > In each of these cases, the device appears to have been approved > because of its similarity to a previously approved device. > > It's a real nightmare trying to find anything useful on the FDA web > site! > > Let us know how you make out with CIGNA. > > > > > > > , I was interested in finding out who manufactures the M-O-M > THR > > that has FDA approval. In my battle with CIGNA, I am attempting to > > whittle down their objections to using the non-FDA approved C+ > device. > > > > Thanks.... > > Mike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.