Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:08 pm
.........
Welcome to This is MS, the leading forum for Multiple Sclerosis research and support. Join our friendly community of patients, caregivers, and researchers celebrating over 20 years of delivering hope through knowledge.
https://www.thisisms.com/forum/
How long were you on the injectable? For some patients I think it was a month, but for some it was a week, which might not be long enough. There is also Dr. Sclafani's recent movement away from using the large balloons, due to him seeing a connection possibly between them and more cases of thrombosis:WinnipegGirl_83 wrote:I had my procedure in Aug 2010. I was on four anti-coag at the same time one of which was an injection. His regimen with me was very aggressive. I don't believe the cause of my re-stenosis was due to a lack of anti-coag. What do you think?
It's among the drawbacks of medical tourism, imo. Dr. Sinan has to be getting feedback and follow-up with his Kuwaiti patients, though?It is really not good that doctors do not keep track of their patients, so they can not get any feedback to what they do. They might do something for a long time which is completely wromg. It is quite irresponsible of them.
My own case is the first scenario, for my left jugular, where I had a 99% stenosis. He measured the vein above it using ivus, which is more precise than the venogram external measurement. The 14 mm balloon chosen should have stretched the valve but done less damage to the vein. The balloons are longer than just the area of stenosis, because small balloons can be like watermelon seeds that slip out of place. So the balloon will be ballooning some healthy area of vein, not just the stenosis, and that is the area that may be most affected by the choice to oversize or to precisely size.Liberation wrote:Hi Cece,
I also asked Dr Sclafani about the size of balloons he uses now and I was told that he still uses large balloons but he scales it to the size of the vein via ivus, so he can avoid using extra large ones. I am just wondering whose risk is greater, when there is a very big (lets say 80-90%) stenoses that is stretched by a balloon whose size is scaled to the stenoses or when there is a small stenoses (lets say 30-40%) and it is stretched by an extra large balloon? Of course, supposing that the veins have the same size in both cases. Wouldn't the damage to the vein walls would be greater in the first case as I am stretching more here? If that is the case, then risk of thrombosis pretty much depends on the patients population someone is treating. It is just a question.
Actually length of balloon is fairly standard as far as I know. I may have miscommunicated that; someone once asked about using short balloons but they are not practical. Placement of balloon and balloon's shoulder matters too. Let's see...Liberation wrote:Mine was treated by a really small (6mm) but dr Sclafani told me it was too long and unnecessary damages the healthy parts. Did he use longer balloons in your case bacause of the small size of the balloon? Otherwise would he use longer ones?
He has treated over 100 patients.How many patients has he treated since he uses ivus?
too soon to tell as far as I know (drsclafani, if you find this, these are yours to answer....How are his results fair with his older results with giant balloons?
Does your regular doctor have any ideas? Could you take something preventatively? At least on the way back, you'd be on Arixtra, an anticoagulant which prevents thrombosis.I would like to get an appointment from him; however, I am still afraid of getting thrombosis on the plane.
Without IVUS, imo, there is not the same certainty that everything has been found and treated appropriately. I was really glad to have it used.My IR told me that he does not understand why others do not use ivus.