Hi everyone--thanks you SO much for all the advice, good wishes, prayers, warm welcomes and insightful commentary. It's so nice to be able to talk to others about this stuff.
I don't have many friends in medicine so I reached out to everyone I could to find other surgeons/physicians that could give me comments about the two doctors that I am contemplating. Based on those responses, as well as the posts above, I have taken Banbury out of the running. I also ended up making two more appointments with two more NY surgeons though, so looks like my final decision is going to be delayed another week. = )
Today I saw Dr. Oz and one thing I especially liked was that he told me I needed a back up plan in case the repair didn't work. He was the first and so far only doctor that mentioned that---Poster Westie advises above about doctors with the honesty to implement a plan b. Other docs did mention the percentage they felt my mitral valve could be repaired but never discussed what happens if I fell into the small percentage of people for which a repair doesn't work. I have to say that even though thinking about a plan b sucks, it did feel refreshing and honest to have someone tell me to think about it and to explain the pros and cons of the various options.
I don't have kids and am 31 so he said I might consider a tissue valve as my back up so that even though I will need surgery again later this will allow me to have kids which is not as likely with a mechanical valve.
And he also explained the great debate about going through the chest versus the side which has been plaguing me a bit. Before seeing Dr. Oz, I felt resolved that I would do it through the chest b/c other docs had told me that going through the side offers less visibility and if the repair is complicated (everyone has told me mine is a bit complicated--I have a bileaflet prolapse) then the side approach may limit how successfully they can repair it versus replace it. But according to Dr. Oz, the visibility is fine through the side and many times even better since the mitral valve actually sits towards the back and that both methods require different surgical training so people can become good at both or one or the other and develop preferences---and this is why people are big advocates for one approach over the other. And so now I am contemplating a minimally invasive approach, which leaves my chest free to be operated on later in life if necessary, for example if I end up getting a replacement instead of a repair.
I also have an appointment next week with Dr. Girardi/Krieger at Weill-Cornell/NY Presbyterian (which a poster above mentions) so I will see how that goes. I am getting the sense that I now have multiple wonderful choices for surgeons and that I am likely to have a good outcome regardless of who I choose.
I will let you guys know what happens after next week's appointment. I wish all of you continued good health and thank you again for all the responses. I really do appreciate it. Talking to my family and friends is not easy since they really don't know what to say to me.
. Best of luck with your decision and upcoming surgery.
