|
Re: Cervical Stenosis
From: anonymous (anonymous@obgyn.net)
Tue Jan 27 10:47:03 2009
Why not get your records reviewed by an endo expert. You might not
''need'' a hyst, esp if you don't want one.
At Tue, 27 Jan 2009, anonymous@obgyn.net wrote:
>
>I have been having several issues related to cervical stenosis going on
>for over 2 years. All of these issues might have been preventable had I
>gone to my annual exams like the good patient should, however the end
>result is I now have a beautiful daughter that I may not have been
>blessed with so there is no use in going into the could-of should-of
>aspect of this.
>
>We found out I was pregnant August of 2006 and when I went to my first
>prenatal visit they performed a routine pap. Of course it came back
>abnormal. I went through the biopsy and it came back carcinoma in situ.
>After my daughter was born I had a cone biopsy done to remove the areas
>affected in my cervix. I went to my first follow up and everything
>looked great and came back normal. That's when I decided all is well
>and went on with my life. I failed to go back for the 2nd follow-up. I
>went 15 months with no period and I thought that since I was
>breast-feeding that I was simply not menstruating due to that. WRONG!!
>I was menstruating, however I had complete cervical stenosis and
>therefore was bleeding back into the uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries,
>and then internal pelvic region and bowels. My system shut down
>completely and I was having episodes of severe abdominal pain on one
>side of the other. I finally went to the ER to discover this. And
>because of the bleeding, I now developed severe endometriosis. I had a
>D & C with a laparoscopy in July 2008 and the flood gates opened so to
>speak. Unfortunately, the damage is done and I have stopped
>menstruating again. I now am scheduled for a complete hysterectomy for
>Feb 12, my birthday!! I understand that this may seem like a severe
>case, however it can happen if you wait too long to seek medical
>attention for abnormal menstruation. Please Please Please seek a
>doctor's intervention before this happens to you.
>
>At Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Sudsey wrote:
>>
>>I was reading up on it and hystericaly at first came up with more spinal
>>stenosis info then the right kind which I would assume you probably did
>>too.. Anyway not sure if this will help at all or not but this is some
>>of the information I ran across on various sites. It seems they talk
>>about what it is more then how to treat it so I can see how that's not
>>answering your questions too well..
>>
>>It can happen with any surgery performed on the cervix and is caused by
>>improper healing of the tissues after a procedure. A risk associated
>>with surgeries done on the cervix is narrowing or total closing of the
>>canal of the cervix. Cervical stenosis is not related to cervical
>>cancer or cryotherapy, which is a treatment for pre-cervical cancer.
>>
>>Stenosis refers to a "stiffening" of muscles; therefore, in cases of
>>cervical stenosis, the already very constricted muscles that hold a
>>woman's cervix closed (very important, obviously, during pregnancy) may
>>not dilate (open) in a normal fashion.
>>
>>Cervical stenosis is more common after a LEEP procedure than after
>>cryotherapy. This problem occurs more often in women over the age of
>>40, but can still take place in younger women. It results in
>>infertility and if it blocks menstrual flow there is increased cramping
>>during menstruation. Though a serious problem, it is not a common risk.
>>Cervical stenosis is more common after a LEEP procedure than after
>>cryotherapy
>>
>>Surgery to remove blockage caused by cervical stenosis is usually done
>>in the hospital.
>>
>>Cervical stenosis can complicate a D&C by creating a false passage in
>>the cervical canal, and possibly lead to uterine perforation. I've
>>found that insufflation with 32% dextrin 70 in dextrose can ease the
>>stenosis.
>>
>>I'm so very sorry to hear you are dealing with this but from what I've
>>read it sounds like there is some sort of surgery to help open the
>>cervix now what this surgery is wasn't explained but reading that a D&c
>>can complicate it would seriously make me think it's not the proper
>>treatment for that aspect of it. I can see that after an extended time
>>of build up a D& C might be in order to remove alot of that but there's
>>got to be a surgery more in the corrective line for this wouldn't you
>>think. A D&C is only treating the complication of the actual problem..
>>I'll dig around a little later with this and see if I can find the name
>>of the proceedure to it..Can't promise I will find it but I'll
>>try..Maybe someone else here already knows that info for you alos. Lets
>>hope huh..
>>Keep you in my thoughts it sounds painful and no one needs anymore
>>added..
>>Hugs
>>Sudsey
>>
>>At Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Laura wrote:
>>>
>>>Does anyone know much about this? I have been doing some research but
>>>not getting a lot of answers. I was diagnosed with it about 10 months
>>>ago. I went in the hospital 8 months ago for the D&C. Before the D&C,
>>>I didn't bleed much during my period which made the pain even worse
>>>because it was backing up into my system. The D&C at least triggered
>>>semi-normal blood flow. Over the past 3 or 4 months, I am not bleeding
>>>much again. My pains and everything else has gotten worse. I would
>>>think that going on like this not good for my body. However, I can't
>>>imagine having to get another D&C would be so great for my body either.
>>>I am not sure what causes the stenosis. Any information that anyone
>>>could provide would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
![[ endo@obgyn.net ]](../../images/endo_at_obgyn.gif)