Author |
Message |
Texannie
Member
07-16-2001
| Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 3:44 pm
even though i had a hysterectomy (for different reasons) and am very happy; hysterectomy isnt the only treatment for fibroids. TYPES OF SURGERY FOR FIBROIDS What Is an Abdominal Myomectomy? Myomectomy means the surgical removal of just the fibroid, with reconstruction and repair of the uterus. This procedure is excellent for women who wish to maintain their ability to have children, or who just prefer to avoid removal of the uterus. The standard method of performing a myomectomy is by laparotomy, making a 4-6 inch "bikini" incision just below the pubic hair line. The covering of the uterus overlying the fibroid is cut, and the fibroids are separated away from the normal uterine muscle. Following this, the remaining normal uterine muscle is sewn back together. This procedure takes about 1-2 hours to perform, depending on the number and position of the fibroids. The hospital stay is 3-4 days. Are Some Fibroids Too Big for a Myomectomy? The short answer is no. Some doctors and some managed care organizations have policies stating that a myomectomy cannot be attempted if the uterus is bigger than a certain size – hysterectomy is the only option that they will offer. However, skilled gynecologic surgeons can perform a myomectomy on just about any size uterus. One of the risks of a myomectomy is bleeding from the uterus during surgery. However, there are a number of techniques that can be used to reduce bleeding. A medication can be injected into the uterus that causes the blood vessels in the muscle to constrict, and less blood will seep out of the incisions in the uterine wall. Other doctors place an elastic tourniquet around the lower portion of the uterus to decrease the blood flow to the uterus. For very large fibroids, some doctors use a machine, called a cell-saver, during surgery. Blood that pools around the uterine incisions is removed, filtered by the cell-saver and replaced back into the patient’s circulation through a vein. Thus, the patient receives an immediate transfusion of her own blood, and there is no risk of HIV infection or mismatched blood. Many gynecologists don’t have training in these techniques and so don’t offer them. Ask your doctor and get some clarification on this issue. What Is a Laparoscopic Myomectomy? Laparoscopic myomectomy is another way to surgically remove fibroids. Laparoscopic surgery is usually performed as outpatient surgery under general anesthesia and has absolutely revolutionized gynecologic surgery because of the short hospital stay and quick recovery that results. The laparoscope is a slender telescope that is inserted through the navel to view the pelvic and abdominal organs. Two or three small, 1/2 inch incisions are made below the pubic hair line. Instruments are passed through these small incisions to perform the surgery. The procedure can take one to three hours depending on the number, size and depth of the fibroids within the muscle wall. Following laparoscopic myomectomy many women are able to leave the hospital the same day as surgery. For more extensive surgery, a one or two day stay may be necessary. Because the incisions are small, recuperation is usually associated with minimal discomfort and most women return to normal activity, work and exercise within two weeks. Laparoscopic myomectomy is technically difficult surgery, so that your physician should have the extra training and experience that it requires. It is your right to ask about qualifications - how were you trained to do this surgery?, how many of these operations have you performed for women with a situation like mine? have you had any complications? - when talking to your doctor or interviewing a gynecologic surgeon. What Is Myoma Coagulation? Myoma coagulation, sometimes called myolysis, is a fairly new surgical procedure developed to shrink fibroids without removing them. The procedure is performed through the laparoscope and uses an electrical needle that is passed directly into the fibroid. When the instrument is activated, it delivers high-temperature energy to the tissue and destroys both the fibroid tissue and the blood vessels feeding it. The procedure takes less time than either abdominal or laparoscoic myomectomy because no tissue needs to be removed and no suturing of the uterus is necessary. At the present time, myoma coagulation is not being recommended for women who wish to have children. Two potential problems exist. First, some women have been found to have formed scar tissue around the uterus after myoma coagulation, and this might impair future fertility. Second, the strength of the uterine wall following myoma coagulation is not known. Because of the potential risk of the uterus tearing during labor, we advise that women do not attempt to get pregnant after they have had myoma coagulation. What Is a Resectoscope Myomectomy? Resectoscope myomectomy is a technique that can be performed only if the fibroids causing the symptoms are within the uterine cavity. A small telescope, the resectoscope, is passed through the cervix, and the internal uterine cavity is seen. Electricity is passed through a thin wire attachment of the telescope allowing the instrument to cut through the fibroid like a hot knife through butter. This procedure is performed as outpatient surgery, without any incisions and most patients are able to go back to normal activity in one or two days. When resectoscope myomectomy is performed for heavy bleeding, nearly 90% of patients return to normal menstrual flow. When fibroids are the cause of infertility, pregnancy rates following this procedure have been about 50%. Only a few years ago, treatment for fibroids in the cavity of the uterus involved major surgery - an abdominal incision and either cutting open the entire uterus to remove the fibroid, or performing a hysterectomy. Resectoscope myomectomy has been a major advance in the treatment of women who have submucous fibroids. What is Uterine Fibroid Embolization? Uterine artery embolization (U.F.E.) is a non-surgical technique that shrinks fibroids without removing them. The procedure is performed by an interventional radiologist (an M.D.) who guides a long thin catheter (tube) into the blood vessels that supply the uterus while monitoring the process under x-ray. Small plastic particles are pushed through the catheter until they form a blockade to the blood flowing to the uterus. Fibroids have a limited supply of blood vessels, and with the blood flow blocked, the fibroid cells start to die off. The surrounding normal uterine muscle has a better blood supply and is able to survive. Deprived of blood, nutrition and oxygen, fibroids shrink like prunes for the three to six months following embolization, and the symptoms from the fibroids often lessen as well. Embolization has been used in medicine for many years and has been used in gynecology since 1972 to stop heavy bleeding from cervical cancer or heavy bleeding from the uterus that rarely occurs after childbirth. Embolization has been very effective for those women, with success rates of 85-100%. Embolization was first used to treat fibroids by the French physician Dr. Jaques Ravina in 1995. Interestingly, his idea was to stop the vaginal bleeding caused by large fibroids prior to performing an abdominal myomectomy. To his surprise, many of the women who were scheduled to come back for surgery after embolization cancelled surgery because most of their symptoms had disappeared as a result of the embolization. It became clear to Dr. Ravina that embolization might be more than a preparation for surgery; it might be the only treatment needed. Shortly after Dr. Ravina published his findings, uterine fibroid embolization became available in many countries around the world. It has now been performed in over 25,000 women. Are you a Good Candidate for Embolization? Embolization is still a relatively new procedure, and selecting the appropriate women who will clearly benefit from UAE is still a work in progress. There remains some difference of opinion amongst interventional radiologists, and even more differences between gynecologists and interventional radiologists as to who should have the procedure. Obviously, the first criteria for treatment would be the presence of fibroid symptoms bothersome enough to require that something be done. As is true for fibroid treatment in general, the option of doing nothing exists unless the fibroids are causing significant anemia or the fibroids are blocking the ureters and threatening harm to the kidneys. UAE works well for women who have large fibroids that are causing discomfort or pain because of their size. If shrinking the fibroids to a little more than half their present size would relieve your symptoms, then UFE may be right for you. However, UAE may not be very helpful for women with extremely large fibroids because they may not shrink enough to make a difference in the symptoms. Women with fibroids on a stalk outside the uterus, called pedunculated fibroids, should not have UFE. Embolization can cause the stalk to deteriorate and allow the fibroid to float around the abdominal cavity. The dead tissue causes an inflammation inside the abdomen resulting in pain and fever. Surgery may be required to remove the degenerating fibroid. Fibroids that mostly bulge inside the uterine cavity, submucous fibroids, may also detach and float inside the uterine cavity after embolization. The uterus will then cramp and contract in order to expel the fibroid. Discharge and blood may accompany this process, and sometimes infection develops. If the fibroid is not expelled, surgery may be needed to remove it. UFE works well for women who have fibroids that are causing heavy bleeding. If your fibroids are small, endometrial ablation may alleviate your symptoms. This outpatient procedure also allows you to avoid hysterectomy and is painless, inexpensive, fast and has a one-day recovery period. However, ablation may not be technically possible if your fibroids are very large. Embolization works very well for women with bleeding and large fibroids Do I Need a Hysterectomy for Fibroids? I believe hysterectomy for uterine fibroids should be performed as a last resort. The many issues concerning hysterectomy are fully discussed in the "Hysterectomy" chapter of A Gynecologist's Second Opinion. Hysterectomy is a major operation and carries with it risks of infection, injury to other organs, anesthesia risks, and blood loss that can sometimes result in the need for transfusion. While complications are uncommon, they should not be taken lightly. Also, recovery from abdominal hysterectomy, with the incision made through the abdomen, takes 4-6 weeks, and recovery from vaginal hysterectomy may take 4 weeks. That's a large chunk out of your life. The cost of surgery is expensive, including doctor's fees, anesthesia fees, hospital charges, and operating room charges. So, if major surgery can be avoided, that's preferable. For the woman who has symptoms from fibroids that require her to have surgery and who does not wish any, or any more, children, removal of the uterus should be discussed. Hysterectomy may be appropriate for a woman who has multiple fibroids, or very large fibroids, and who does not want to take a chance that another surgery may be needed for fibroids at a later time. Hysterectomy can be an option for women who have fibroids, but only when fertility is not an issue, only when other options have been tried, only when they are emotionally prepared, only as a last resort. For more information about fibroids, please visit http://www.fibroidsecondopinion.com/
|
Nancy
Member
08-01-2000
| Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 3:58 pm
thanks tex--i swear between my knee and this i've had more problems at 48 years old than i've had in my entire life time 
|
Juju2bigdog
Member
10-27-2000
| Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 4:26 pm
Good to get it diagnosed, Nancy. Good luck.
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-25-2003
| Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 5:38 pm
Shingles are quite painful so I've heard. Yes? I did have the chicken pox as a child, so I'm thinking about getting the shingles vaccine later this year. But . . . I don't know. Haven't heard much of anything about it. Has anyone had shingles or gotten the shot?
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 5:53 pm
I didn't know they had a shot for it.. would it work if you've already had chicken pox and thus carry the virus? I had chicken pox as a kid so I've been aware that I could at some point develop shingles if my immune system takes a dump. My dad had what I gather was a mild, but still painful, bout with shingles.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 6:13 pm
Whoa, Color! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12987702
quote:WASHINGTON - A new vaccine that could put the pox on shingles for many adult sufferers of the often painful infection caused by the chickenpox virus has received federal approval, health officials said Friday. The Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine, Zostavax, late Thursday, Merck & Co. Inc. spokeswoman Christine Fanelle said. The vaccine is only for adults who previously have had chickenpox. ¡°This vaccine gives health care providers an important tool that can help prevent an illness that affects many older Americans and often results in significant chronic pain,¡± said Dr. Jesse Goodman, director of the FDA¡¯s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Shingles, also called herpes zoster, strikes when the chickenpox virus reactivates and resumes reproducing after lying dormant for decades in nerve cells in the body. There are roughly 1 million new U.S. cases of shingles each year. It typically affects the elderly, though anyone with a weakened immune system is vulnerable. Shingles can cause itching, burning and tingling, as well as a distinctive red rash that develops into pus-filled blisters that later break open and form scabs. Pain, too, is common and can persist in some patients for months or years. Merck research showed the vaccine reduced the incidence of shingles by half and pain and discomfort by nearly two-thirds. Side effects The vaccine¡¯s long-term effectiveness remains unclear. Merck has shown that it works for at least four years, and plans to track patients for a decade. The company also pledged to further study the vaccine¡¯s safety after patients in clinical trials suffered a slightly higher number of serious side effects than did those who received dummy injections, the FDA said. Currently, there is no evidence the vaccine was to blame, the agency added. The vaccine is intended for use in people 60 and older. ¡°This is going to be the first product of any kind, vaccine or anything else, that can prevent shingles,¡± said Dr. Jeffrey Silber, senior director of clinical research on biologics and vaccines for Merck Research Laboratories. Zostavax is based on Merck¡¯s chickenpox vaccine, Varivax, but is 14 times more potent. The FDA approved Varivax in 1995. A majority of American children now receive that vaccine. Anyone who has had chickenpox can develop shingles. Merck estimates that half of all people who reach age 85 will develop shingles during their lifetime. Shingles can¡¯t be passed from human to human, but anyone who hasn¡¯t had chickenpox ¡ª or never received the vaccine that protects against it ¡ª can be infected with the virus if exposed to someone with an active case of shingles. The approval is welcome news for Merck, which faces thousands of lawsuits over its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx. It¡¯s also just one of several vaccines for which the Whitehouse Station, N.J. company has received ¡ª or soon expects to receive ¡ª FDA approval. They include RotaTeq, a vaccine against a common, sometimes dangerous gastrointestinal virus in children, approved in February; and ProQuad, a combined vaccine against measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox, approved in September. And early in June, Merck hopes the FDA will approve its Gardasil vaccine against human papillomavirus, the main cause of cervical cancer. European and Australian health officials earlier this month approved the shingles vaccine, Merck said. The company is eyeing the roughly 50 million Americans and 100 million Europeans age 60 and older as its largest markets for the single-dose vaccine. A dose will cost $152.50.
Hmm, sounds pretty new.
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-25-2003
| Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 6:13 pm
From the FDA about the vaccine. This article is dated a year ago today. Haven't heard of anyone who has gotten vaccinated. An aunt of mine got shingles many years ago and my upstairs neighbor (I'm in a condo) got it just last year.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 6:24 pm
Another from last September about the potential for this being covered by insurance.. looks like it may be covered by Medicare. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15003094/
quote:Updated: 4:52 p.m. PT Sept 25, 2006 WASHINGTON - Cornelia Jefferson vividly recalls the excruciating pain that shingles caused her mother and brother. So when her doctor got a supply of the new shingles vaccine, the retiree jumped at the chance — without knowing if her insurance would pay or she would be stuck with a bill for more than $150. The shingles vaccine called Zostavax was hailed as a way to prevent an agonizing rite of aging when it hit the market last spring. But with the pricey shots so far going mostly to those who can afford to pay out of pocket, public health specialists fear the vaccine will be vastly underused, and set back broader efforts to increase immunizations for adults. “We have built a Jaguar, and we’re going to leave it in the garage,” laments Dr. William Schaffner, a vaccine expert at Vanderbilt University who advises the government on immunization issues. Topping the concerns: For patients over 65, Medicare will begin paying for the shingles vaccine in January — but not the way it pays for the most widely used adult inoculations, flu shots, which are fully covered. Instead, the shingles vaccine will be treated like a prescription drug, with varying co-pays depending on a patient’s drug plan. To the dismay of doctors, that also means Medicare won’t reimburse them for actually administering Zostavax, an extra $15 or so they’ll have to pass up or charge directly to patients. Pharmacists might be best route Laws in all but six states explicitly allow pharmacists to immunize adults, and drugstores have become a leading flu-shot provider. So this fall, pharmacists are being urged to add shingles shots to the menu; they’ll get the Medicare reimbursement directly. For many Medicare recipients, a trip to the drugstore might be the simplest way to get Zostavax, says Medicare’s Dr. Jeffrey Kelman. But the shingles vaccine isn’t just for those old enough for Medicare. It was approved for sale to people 60 and over. Next month, when the government’s vaccine advisers issue the first official guidelines on Zostavax’s use, doctors will debate whether those even younger also should be immunized if they’re at high risk of shingles. Most insurers for the under-65 set are awaiting those guidelines before deciding how or whether to cover the shots, according to the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans. The biggest question: Whether the guidelines will say every senior eligible for Zostavax should get it, or just consider getting it. More than ever before, vaccines aren’t just for kids. In addition to Zostavax, whooping cough booster shots were recently recommended for adults up to age 64, and a cervical cancer vaccine hit the market aimed at adolescents and those in their 20s. These new-generation adult vaccines cost well more than $10 or $20 for old standbys that protect against the flu or tetanus. Nor is there a national program to guarantee access to immunizations for adults who can’t afford them — like there is for children. The cervical cancer vaccine is the priciest, at more than $300 for a three-shot series, but only a small number of adults qualify for it. Millions are candidates for Zostavax — making the one-dose shingles shot, priced around $150, the big test case to see if doctors can get more adults interested in immunizations. Millions at risk for shingles Why? Anyone who ever had chickenpox is at risk for shingles. The chickenpox virus lies dormant inside the body for decades and then erupts, causing itching, burning and tingling with a red rash that develops into pus-filled blisters. It strikes about 1 million Americans a year, mostly those 60 and older. Up to 200,000 of them have a particularly bad type of nerve pain that can persist for months or years, the kind of pain Jefferson, 62, watched afflict her mother and brother. “She couldn’t stand for clothes to even touch her,” recalls Jefferson, of Franklin, Tenn. Her brother had a tooth pulled before discovering his yearlong pain was actually shingles penetrating nerves in his head. “If this vaccine will prevent that, it’ll be great.” Zostavax doesn’t treat active shingles, but boosts a patient’s immunity to prevent the chickenpox virus from re-emerging. Studies by manufacturer Merck & Co. Inc. found the shot cut cases of shingles in half, and that shingles cases that still occurred were far less painful. But the vaccine is made with a live virus, so it’s not for people with HIV or other conditions that weaken the immune system.
Merck won’t say how many shots it has sold to date. Led by the American Medical Association, doctors groups have begun protesting that Medicare’s just-finalized payment plans will limit the number who ultimately offer Zostavax. It’s the law, responds Kelman: Congress set up a provision that allows Medicare recipients free vaccination against flu, pneumonia and in some cases hepatitis, with their doctors paid $15 for each jab to cover time and expenses. But the law makes clear that other vaccines used to prevent disease must be treated as prescription drugs, with no doctor fee, he says.
|
Juju2bigdog
Member
10-27-2000
| Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 6:52 pm
I read about it more than a year ago and was waiting a year until the vaccine became available. So I thought the year was up in about March 2007 and researched it then. I would like to get a shot as soon as possible. Things I read in March led me to believe they might not give you the shot under age 60. I know a couple people who have contracted shingles and who said it was almost unbearable. They were in their 50's. Sigh ... I am under 60, although not by much. I am keeping my eye on this one and will still try to get the shot as soon as I can. Thanks for reminding me I should call my insurance and ask them.
|
Tess
Member
04-13-2001
| Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 10:44 pm
Sea, I had shingles 13 years ago and I was in agony. They spread so rapidly because I was on prednisone for a lung infection and when my doc figured out it was shingles I had to stop the steroids immediately. I wouldn't wish shingles on anyone. The pain comes back for years afterward. My father had the same experience though he was much older when got it. I had just turned 40 but my immune system was a disaster.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 11:30 pm
I'd like to think my immune system isn't too bad, but the repsiratory crap I had for several months over the winter, who knows? And my Dad did get shingles... No idea if my insurance will cover it, but I think I'll question my doctor about it. Sounds like you could even get a script and then have a pharmacist inject it? How strange. Color and I might not be thrilled to be the age to qualify, but you have to have SOME advantages, eh?
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 12:55 pm
You may want to really investigate those side effects, too. They also don't know the longterm effects of the drug. I'm not so certain I'd be willing to get a vaccine that could cause problems. Is there any way to tell if someone is predisposed to shingles? Besides having had chicken pox? Of course, I'm not near qualifying (yet) so I may have a slighly different view. And yeah, I've known people with shingles and it can be quite painful (although I seem to recall my aunt was on medication that greatly reduced the symptoms).
|
Tess
Member
04-13-2001
| Monday, May 28, 2007 - 9:56 pm
My sister has her PhD in immunology and did research for many, many years at the University of Chicago on the virus which causes chicken pox and shingles. I should ask her if she's heard anything pro or con about the vaccine. She's been out of the field for a little while now and is the scientist at the Museum of Science and Industry but she still has many friends at the U of C and could easily find out......uh, if I remember to ask her, that is. I'm not quite as old as Juju yet, but my memory is worse. ack!
|
Juju2bigdog
Member
10-27-2000
| Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 7:56 am
Thanks, Tess, I mean Spring Chicken. I will appreciate it. You know once I fall over the big Six-Oh cliff, I will be pulling a whole lot of the figments in that direction too.
|
Tess
Member
04-13-2001
| Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 12:19 am
ack!!!
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-25-2003
| Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 7:41 am
My sister has her PhD in immunology and did research for many, many years at the University of Chicago on the virus which causes chicken pox and shingles. I should ask her if she's heard anything pro or con about the vaccine. She's been out of the field for a little while now and is the scientist at the Museum of Science and Industry . . . . !!! Interesting work -- at the Museum of Science and Industry?! Did she have anything to do with the plastination exhibit? (I didn't see it.) Yes, Tess, please ask her about the shingles vaccine.
|
Juju2bigdog
Member
10-27-2000
| Saturday, June 02, 2007 - 8:19 pm
Which reminds me. I did call Blue Cross Blue Shield. They do cover the vaccination, but only for patients over 60. So Bigdog and I will just have to wait a while and hope we don't get shingles in the meantime.
|
Rissa
Member
03-20-2006
| Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 4:55 am
Juju, did they say what the cost is if you pay for it yourself? I get the flu shot free because I am diabetic and my middle child gets it because she has asthma. I pay for the other two and my hubby... it's $45 for the three. With my father being so very ill, a flu would kill him and it would kill me if it was one of my children who passed it on to him. Plus I figure I would pay more in Tylenol and Gravol if they did get sick. LOL If the vaccine is priced right, might be worth it for your peace of mind.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 5:18 am
I think that article from a year ago said it could cost $200, but mentioned somehow getting a prescription and having a pharmacist give the shot for less than a doctor would charge. I shoud call my doctor to see if he has any on hand or has to order it.
|
Rissa
Member
03-20-2006
| Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 5:31 am
My dad's doctor is submitting a "compassionate medical excemption" application to the Cdn govt to try to get him a drug that is almost done clinical trials in the USA but hasn't even began testing here in Canada. Has anyone had experience with this process? Am wondering how many of these requests are granted.
|
Rissa
Member
03-20-2006
| Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 5:34 am
That's a one-time cost, right? I went back and read the article again and it didn't mention having to get the shot annually. I think that would be an acceptable cost for me once the vaccine has gone through some longer term testing.
|
Juju2bigdog
Member
10-27-2000
| Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 7:22 am
Rissa, no, they didn't say. And yes, I think it is a one-time lifetime vaccination. Blue Cross said they call it the Zoster vaccination if that helps anybody.
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 8:26 am
I dunno. I think the risk of getting shingles is fairly low (depending on the study, the average is 15% of those who had chickenpox?). Your risk is higher if you are immunocompromised. There's also a some discussion of the risk of contracting shingles if you had chickenpox as a child, versus having been vaccinated against CP. In the cases of those vaccinated, the risk is much lower. Note that the herpes zoster virus can be activated due to stress. So the moral of story? Hehehe... don't stress out about anything!!! Even this! <big grin> Hmmm... I just discovered some stats (uncited, so believe what you want): 1. Your lifetime risk of getting shingles is 1:5. 2. Your chance to get again once recovered is 1:20. And more with citations:
quote:Shingles is the skin condition caused by a virus named herpes zoster. I have found the following statistics in the course of my research. Each set of numbers was collected from one web page, the address of which is noted immediately under the respective set. 0.18% of the US population is diagnosed with shingles each year 20% of people will contract shingles in their lifetime WrongDiagnosis: Prevalence and Incidence of Shingles http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/shingles/prevalence.htm 10% of people who have had chicken pox as children will get shingles as adults 70% of shingles cases occur in patients over the age of 50 50% of those age 80 and up will develop shingles HealingWithNutrition: Shingles Facts and Statistics http://www.healingwithnutrition.com/sdisease/shingles/shingles.html 20% of all people with shingles develop postherpetic neuralgia, which is a "a prolonged, severe pain to the point where they cannot keep up their usual activities or even wear clothing". 40% of shingles patients over age 60 develop postherpetic neuralgia Colorado Health Site: Shingles Prevention Study: Common Questions http://www.coloradohealthsite.org/derm/derm_def.htm 4% of people who have had one attack of shingles will have further attacks 5% of people with shingles are found to have an underlying cancer Mama's Health: "Shingles: An Unwelcome Encore" http://www.mamashealth.com/skin/shingles.asp 5% of shingles cases occur in children under 14 years of age 25% of Hodgkin's lymphoma patients develop shingles 15% of shingles cases are transmitted by a household member American Family Physician: Management of Herpes Zoster (Shingles) and Postherpetic Neuralgia http://www.aafp.org/afp/20000415/2437.html 20% percent of AIDS patients have recurrent shingles in 100% of shingles cases, the affected skin returns to normal in four weeks 1% of shingles patients feel residual pain in the affected area for longer than one year Aetna InteliHealth: Shingles (Herpes Zoster) http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9339/48820.html Note especially the information given by Aetna InteliHealth and reviewed by the faculty of the Harvard Medical School, according to which the skin affected by shingles returns to normal in four weeks. If this is true, then any skin condition that lasts longer than four weeks is not caused by shingles.
Found on Google Answers
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Sunday, June 03, 2007 - 8:29 am
Anyways, my point... There are still too many unknowns and the risk is still low enough FOR ME to consider a vaccine. At any rate, it's still unsure if I ever even had 'em. I, apparently, had a single pox and the doc thought it *may* have been chickenpox. But no one in my family ever had it, including my mother and sister.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Monday, June 04, 2007 - 2:23 pm
I definitely had chicken pox, so did my brother! I'm moving into the more likely age for it and I certainly envision being around til age 80. My dad did get shingles. Thanks, Juju.. have to remember that, Zoster, if I get around to discussing it with my doctor. (LOL, he himself hates getting shots.. he happily GIVES flu shots but won't take one himself for that reason)
|
|
|
|