I had laparscopic removal of the gall bladder... it showed severe inflamation of it, but not a specific cause... The docs thought it would show microscopic stones, but no. It also meant (since it was removed piecemeal) that they didn't keep it so it could later be tested for CD... (the g/b removal was done almost a year prior to my diagnosis).
Anyway, the 5 little incisions for the laproscopic surgery were inconsequential, but I did have a lot of post op discomfort. some due to them inflating the area during the procedure, but apparently most because g/b surgery is in a tricky area, and history has it hurting either laproscopically or not..
I would venture that, if a doctor advises a laproscopic exploratory, then it must be necessary. They don't go tossing these around will nilly. first, this is an operation, they do cut into you, you do require a general anesthetic, you will need recovery, there are some (albeit minor - or at least calculated) risks involved... And from their standpoint.. it will tie up resources, surgeons, OR, recovery room, nurses, etc, etc..
but, if they can see well enuff inside a person to operate this way, imagine just how well they can see other parts that they cant' see via endoscope or pill cam...
anda-wave-t:
