Two month ago, I fell on the ice and injured my back. I had previous to this, scheduled a meeting with a lung specialist since I have breathing problems and wanted them further looked into. The lung specialist, noting that I had the fall and since he was already taking X-rays of my lungs, suggested that pics be taken of my ribs, since I complained of pain. The X-rays revealed two cracked ribs in the front. I apparently had fallen with such force on my back, that I had managed to crack two ribs in the front. At the same time the X-rays revealed "calcium around the aorta." A sonogram was recommended.
The sonogram revealed an aneurysm on the aorta of 6.3 cms. I went to a specialist recommended by my family physician who reviewed the sonogram, and he recommended a CT scan. I had already scheduled a CT in another hospital, where the lung specialist was, had it done, and it revealed an aneurysm of 6.1 cms. Still pointing toward an operation. The question was, given the size of the aneurysm, is it located far away enough from the renal artery, to allow stenting? The surgeon reviewing the CT scan made me wait two weeks for any kind of response, then, after much cajoling, told his secretary that he wished to wait for an angiogram before any prognostication. Although this caused not a little mental anguish, I concurred.The CT was on Dec 28, 2000, the Angio was on Jan 10. 2001. I waited for a call. Naturally anxious and concerned, I reluctantly called. Several days later, the secretary infomed me it was stentable - that is, located in such a fashion that a stent would be a viable option.
Naturally (to me) since this involved invasion still - to some extent - I was interested in going back to the other "stent doctor" to see what he thought - if it was in fact, from both points of view - operable - that is, stentable. In other words, I wanted and still want a second opinion. The doctor who finally informed me (and not him but his secretary) that it was stentable, (according to his secretary) would be on leave until early February. My assumption, at this point, was that it couldn't be too serious, since she set the appointment to meet with the stent Dr February 16 or 19. Not being able to communicate with him directly and wanting a second opinion in either case, I naturally sought the records to review them with my other stent doctor.
After much calling and threatening and re-calling, a report of the CT and the angio were sent to my family doctor, who was now acting like I was a traitor or slightly out of my mind. My family physicians recommend one set of doctors. I made the mistake of going to their doctor, then to another set of doctors in another city. (This needs further clarification.) To get to the point: When I finally got my hands on the radiology reports, the CT scan (Dec 28, 2000) said 6.1 cms diameter, the angio: 1/10 2001 said 4.2 diameter. To me, a layman, this says that the aneurysm shrunk back to a pre-operable size. The US operates when it reaches 5 cms; the Brits say operate at 6 cms.
My question is: since, as it appears, my aneurysm, which began with the sono at 6.3 cms, then was recorded with the Ct at 6.1 cms (understandable, since CTs are more precise than sonos) but THEN with the angio, recorded at 4.2. Why has my doctor not informed me that even STENTING is no longer necessary? Or am I wrong in my reading of this? I can't get either doctor to clarify this! I have asked the other doctor to read the radiology report. He says he must see the films. The other doctor won't release the films! I am at the point of 1)getting another sono from another doctor or just dropping the whole thing and waiting for the explosion. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Let me reduce it to one question that I can't get either of my stent doctors to answer:
WHY DOES AN ANEURYSM DROP FROM A CT SIZE OF 6.1 CMS (DIAMETER) ON DECEMBER 28, 2000 TO 4.2 CMS (DIAMETER) IN AN ANGIOGRAM GIVEN ON JANUARY 10, 2001. AND WHY AM I NOT ALLOWED TO GET A SECOND OPINION?
Any and all responses (or questions) would be greatly appreciated.