No, I wasn't talking about "little itty bitty camera's" marie; hate to point out the obvious, but even in colour they would be all red... blood being the way it is n all.
(I couldn't resist
) I am guessing if they need to "see" a valve better than what they can visualise otherwise, we are talking open surgery. And I think that's what Erika is up for, as she has an inverted valve (seen on ultrasound, I think)
And yes, I do understand its the choice between two evils. I just believe in having your eyes open and knowing all the facets, and making an informed decision (no matter how simple the choice may seem
I also wanted to find out a little of actual numbers as to the level of radiation. I read on the Wiki I think, that a CAT scan of the torso comes in at somewhere between 50 to 100 chest X-rays equivalent. I have already had a CAT scan of my lungs (and 1 chest X-ray). As far as I understand, radiation is a cumulative thing, which as you accumulate, your risk for "side-effects" accumulate. From my simple understanding, it's not a case of "loosing" radiation over time, its a case of the damage accumulated; the more radiation experienced, the more damage, the more chance that damage could develop into something like a cancer. Its a numbers thing.
If the operation itself was fairly low in radiation, I would be more comfortable with a CAT scan now, instead of waiting for the MRI protocol.
I guess the real question would be "anyone know the rough X-ray equivalence of the flouroscope during the stenting?"