a 4mm Kidney Stone In the Ureter Posted: 07-14-07 20:57pm
I'm a 41 years old male with a family
history of kidney stones living in
Toronto. About 5 few weeks ago I've been
diagnosed with a kidney stone. The CT scan
performed on June 22 showed a 4 mm stone
located in the upper part of the ureter.
Prior to the CT scan, the stone had moved
a couple of centimeters down the ureter
according to the X-ray. Last week I was
finally able to get a urologist to see me.
He briefly looked at the CT scan and told
me that he would need to perform a
ureteroscopy, since the stone was too big
and, if it didn't pass in one month, it
will probably never will on its own.
I'm originally from Eastern Europe and my
best friend over there is a urologist with
more than 15 years of clinical experience.
According to him, in that country no
doctor will EVER perform a ureteroscopy
for a 4 mm stone. They believe it's not
worth to undertake such a relatively risky
and complex procedure for such a small
stone before other methods have been
tried. For example, they prescribe a
medicine that could either soften/dissolve
the stone or widen the blood vessels in
order to let the stone pass.
I'm under impression that here in North
America the alternative methods of stone
treatment are not used at all. Currently I
have no major pain, the stone seems to be
inactive and I would rather avoid a
surgery, which always has its own risks
(general anesthesia, for example) and
which is followed by some very unpleasant
and painfull procedures (stent removal).
I would even prefer the shock wave
treatment, however he urologist hadn' t
offered that option. Another thing - most
internet resources suggest that 80% of
stones of 4 mm and smaller should pass on
its own. My CT scan summaty shows it is 4
mm. What's the reason my urologist claims
it's too big and he wants to perform a
surgery right away without trying anything
else?
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3939 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 121
Thanked:12
Posted: 07-14-07 21:06pm
Hello,
I had a 4mm stone that passed on it's own
with a couple of days. Surgery was never,
ever mentioned to me.
I would get a third opinion.
|
hopesprings2
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Jul 2007 Posts: 35 Location: missouri
Re: a 4mm Kidney Stone In the Ureter Posted: 07-16-07 18:59pm
Martin66
wrote:
I'm a 41 years old male with
a family history of kidney stones living
in Toronto. About 5 few weeks ago I've
been diagnosed with a kidney stone. The CT
scan performed on June 22 showed a 4 mm
stone located in the upper part of the
ureter. Prior to the CT scan, the stone
had moved a couple of centimeters down the
ureter according to the X-ray. Last week I
was finally able to get a urologist to see
me. He briefly looked at the CT scan and
told me that he would need to perform a
ureteroscopy, since the stone was too big
and, if it didn't pass in one month, it
will probably never will on its own.
I'm originally from Eastern Europe and my
best friend over there is a urologist with
more than 15 years of clinical experience.
According to him, in that country no
doctor will EVER perform a ureteroscopy
for a 4 mm stone. They believe it's not
worth to undertake such a relatively risky
and complex procedure for such a small
stone before other methods have been
tried. For example, they prescribe a
medicine that could either soften/dissolve
the stone or widen the blood vessels in
order to let the stone pass.
I'm under impression that here in North
America the alternative methods of stone
treatment are not used at all. Currently I
have no major pain, the stone seems to be
inactive and I would rather avoid a
surgery, which always has its own risks
(general anesthesia, for example) and
which is followed by some very unpleasant
and painfull procedures (stent removal).
I would even prefer the shock wave
treatment, however he urologist hadn' t
offered that option. Another thing - most
internet resources suggest that 80% of
stones of 4 mm and smaller should pass on
its own. My CT scan summaty shows it is 4
mm. What's the reason my urologist claims
it's too big and he wants to perform a
surgery right away without trying anything
else?
I had some that size and
they came out in time.Im new here hope i
answeree in the right place.
|
Fairy*Godmother
Supporter
Joined: 11 Oct 2003 Posts: 1387 Location: , Georgia USA
Thanks: 47
Thanked:59
Hi Posted: 07-16-07 19:04pm
If it were me, I'd find another urologist
as well. This one you have seems to be
surgery happy or jumping the gun. My
husband has a history of kidney
stones....I wish I'd kept the ones he's
passed..I should have a necklace by now!
Not sure of the size of the ones he's
passed in the past, but do know he was in
a lot of pain. I would find another Doctor
who at least would explain ot me why this
first one is in such a rush to perform
surgery............doesn't sound correct!
|
hopesprings2
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Jul 2007 Posts: 35 Location: missouri
Re: a 4mm Kidney Stone In the Ureter Posted: 07-27-07 12:15pm
Martin66
wrote:
I'm a 41 years old male with
a family history of kidney stones living
in Toronto. About 5 few weeks ago I've
been diagnosed with a kidney stone. The CT
scan performed on June 22 showed a 4 mm
stone located in the upper part of the
ureter. Prior to the CT scan, the stone
had moved a couple of centimeters down the
ureter according to the X-ray. Last week I
was finally able to get a urologist to see
me. He briefly looked at the CT scan and
told me that he would need to perform a
ureteroscopy, since the stone was too big
and, if it didn't pass in one month, it
will probably never will on its own.
I'm originally from Eastern Europe and my
best friend over there is a urologist with
more than 15 years of clinical experience.
According to him, in that country no
doctor will EVER perform a ureteroscopy
for a 4 mm stone. They believe it's not
worth to undertake such a relatively risky
and complex procedure for such a small
stone before other methods have been
tried. For example, they prescribe a
medicine that could either soften/dissolve
the stone or widen the blood vessels in
order to let the stone pass.
I'm under impression that here in North
America the alternative methods of stone
treatment are not used at all. Currently I
have no major pain, the stone seems to be
inactive and I would rather avoid a
surgery, which always has its own risks
(general anesthesia, for example) and
which is followed by some very unpleasant
and painfull procedures (stent removal).
I would even prefer the shock wave
treatment, however he urologist hadn' t
offered that option. Another thing - most
internet resources suggest that 80% of
stones of 4 mm and smaller should pass on
its own. My CT scan summaty shows it is 4
mm. What's the reason my urologist claims
it's too big and he wants to perform a
surgery right away without trying anything
else?
Drink lots and lots of
water.It might still pass.
most give it 6 to 8 weeks.and that size
usally pass.get alot of exercise also even
if your in pain .i just had a lipotripsy
done on a ureteral stone that was up
high.im praying it all came out and keeps
up.however mine was larger.
