Re: laproscopic surgery for removal of gallstones

[Guest guest]

Hi Suzanne,

Wow. I've never heard of that. I can only tell you that my surgeon,

when I asked him about alternatives to GB removal, said that even if

you could disolve stones or get rid of them, your body will continue to

make them, so it's only a matter of time before you have trouble or

pain again. This is true, if you don't make changes in your life and

diet. This is something my doctor never addressed.

I have only heard of a laser-type procedure, or maybe it was a chemical

one, that the medical profession uses to disolve stones(it's been

awhile, so I don't remember exactly).

Adrienne

Happy New Year to you too!

--- suzanne_on_ca <suzanne_on_ca@...> wrote:

> Happy New Year everyone!

>

> I know that this is a site for cleansing, but I also have heard of a

> few of the members who have had surgery. So....

>

> My husband recalls that his father, who was living in Holland, had

> his gallstones (not gallbladder) sugically removed in the mid 60's.

>

> Has anyone heard of this surgery available in North America? And if

> so, would it be possible that in this day and age it would be

> available laproscopically?

>

> Thank you.

>

> Suzanne

>

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi Adrienne,

Could it be possible that surgical removal of gallstones is not

offered because removal of the total gallbladderis much easier and

probably pays a similar fee to the doctor?

I know that many women are only offered a hysterectomy when a

myomectomy may be a much more useful alternative - but more

complicated for the doctor for about the same fee.

Suzanne

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I'm guessing that because the medical profession would not consider

stone removal a " cure, " they could not justify the risks involved with

surgery to just remove stones. There's an issue of liability too, I

would think.

Adrienne :-)

--- suzanne_on_ca <suzanne_on_ca@...> wrote:

> Hi Adrienne,

>

> Could it be possible that surgical removal of gallstones is not

> offered because removal of the total gallbladderis much easier and

> probably pays a similar fee to the doctor?

>

> I know that many women are only offered a hysterectomy when a

> myomectomy may be a much more useful alternative - but more

> complicated for the doctor for about the same fee.

>

> Suzanne

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/5/02 2:59:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

adriennelynn1@... writes:

> I'm guessing that because the medical profession would not consider

> stone removal a " cure, " they could not justify the risks involved with

> surgery to just remove stones. There's an issue of liability too, I

> would think.

>

Especially since the body will often continue to produce stones - this would

make it seem as though the surgery wasn't " successful " if it was to remove

the existing stones. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen, unfortunately.

[Guest guest]

I'm a day behind on my mail, soI'm sorry if someone has already mentioned

this.

There is a machine (which I forget the name of, but I believe it uses sound

waves??) which breaks up stones, usually used along with a medication called

Actigall. It is being used in this country, but not in very many places.

I, too, remember vaguely hearing about the type of surgery you described.

Maybe someone else knows more about it.

Debra

_________________________________________________________________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com