MCunningham
Cathlete
So, back in January, I went to the ER at about midnight after 3 hours of constant vomiting (about every 10 minutes) and upper back pain (not debilitating pain, but definitely nothing to shake off). While there, they did a CT and an ultrasound and diagnosed me as having gall stones and suffering from an acute gallbladder attack.
Pertinent facts:
1.) I just turned 30
2.) I'd never before had stomach pain/issues
3.) DH and I are planning to start a family later this year or early next year
Once they stabilized me and released me after an overnight stay, the ER physician recommended that I seek opinions of surgeons on the possibility of having my gallbladder removed.
Surgeon 1's opinion:
- Not sure I really had a gallbladder attack in January
- Still recommends removal because of my young age and the fact that the gallbladder does not currently seem necrotic/infected
- Heavily recommends removal because I will be trying to get pregnant, and pregnancy can apparently cause major problems in women who have gallstones (and who wants that additional complication during a pregnancy?)
- Told me that there is a way to dissolve gallstones, but it's lengthy and painful and they usually come back anyway
Surgeon 2's opinion:
- Also on the fence about whether the January issue was a gallbladder attack mainly because the pain factor wasn't HUGE for me, thinks it may have been food poisoning instead and discovery of the gallstones was incidental
- Recommends getting the surgery anyway because of the potential for infection/necrosis as I age (assuming I live another 50 or so years) and may not be as able to recover from surgery if I develop complications when I'm older
- Also strongly recommends taking care of it before trying to conceive because gallbladder attacks tend to increase during pregnancy and treatment options are limited at that point
So, although both surgeons recommend the surgery (it would apparently be laproscopic), I've been terrifying myself by reading stories of post-surgery issues online (explosive diarrhea, pain where the gallbladder used to be, weight gain, decreased energy level). However, since I'm not sure I actually had a gallbladder attack and I haven't had one since in the following 9 months, I've had the luxury of debating both sides, and I'm torn between going with what the surgeons recommend and knowing that my digestive system might be forever wacky and other problems might crop up. If I weren't considering pregnancy in a few months, I probably would wait to see if I had another (or my first?) gallbladder attack, because as it turns out, my grandmother has had gallstones for decades and has never had an attack.
Anyway, I'm still torn. My husband thinks I should do it, and my head tells me I should, but I've never had surgery before and I'm really quite terrified... plus, like I said, I feel almost like it might not be entirely necessary because I might not have had an acute attack yet.
So, my questions:
1.) What would you do, faced with my info?
2.) To those who've done it, please tell me the good, the bad, and the ugly. How has your digestive system/energy level been since? Do you regret the surgery?
Thank you in advance!
MC
Pertinent facts:
1.) I just turned 30
2.) I'd never before had stomach pain/issues
3.) DH and I are planning to start a family later this year or early next year
Once they stabilized me and released me after an overnight stay, the ER physician recommended that I seek opinions of surgeons on the possibility of having my gallbladder removed.
Surgeon 1's opinion:
- Not sure I really had a gallbladder attack in January
- Still recommends removal because of my young age and the fact that the gallbladder does not currently seem necrotic/infected
- Heavily recommends removal because I will be trying to get pregnant, and pregnancy can apparently cause major problems in women who have gallstones (and who wants that additional complication during a pregnancy?)
- Told me that there is a way to dissolve gallstones, but it's lengthy and painful and they usually come back anyway
Surgeon 2's opinion:
- Also on the fence about whether the January issue was a gallbladder attack mainly because the pain factor wasn't HUGE for me, thinks it may have been food poisoning instead and discovery of the gallstones was incidental
- Recommends getting the surgery anyway because of the potential for infection/necrosis as I age (assuming I live another 50 or so years) and may not be as able to recover from surgery if I develop complications when I'm older
- Also strongly recommends taking care of it before trying to conceive because gallbladder attacks tend to increase during pregnancy and treatment options are limited at that point
So, although both surgeons recommend the surgery (it would apparently be laproscopic), I've been terrifying myself by reading stories of post-surgery issues online (explosive diarrhea, pain where the gallbladder used to be, weight gain, decreased energy level). However, since I'm not sure I actually had a gallbladder attack and I haven't had one since in the following 9 months, I've had the luxury of debating both sides, and I'm torn between going with what the surgeons recommend and knowing that my digestive system might be forever wacky and other problems might crop up. If I weren't considering pregnancy in a few months, I probably would wait to see if I had another (or my first?) gallbladder attack, because as it turns out, my grandmother has had gallstones for decades and has never had an attack.
Anyway, I'm still torn. My husband thinks I should do it, and my head tells me I should, but I've never had surgery before and I'm really quite terrified... plus, like I said, I feel almost like it might not be entirely necessary because I might not have had an acute attack yet.
So, my questions:
1.) What would you do, faced with my info?
2.) To those who've done it, please tell me the good, the bad, and the ugly. How has your digestive system/energy level been since? Do you regret the surgery?
Thank you in advance!
MC