sood
Well-known member
So I'm 2 days away from my surgery at this point. Had my final pre-op meetings today with the hospital and anestesia. So I had a surgery in 1996 to repair the ACL in my left knee. The first time I went in for that operation the temperature probes on my forehead and chest that they used showed I was running a fever, not exactly sure how high it was but I think over 103. This is after they gave me anesthetics. So before they did the surgery they rushed me out thinking I might have malignant hyperthermia (which basically is a major problem with your muscles responding to the anesthetics). They didn't really do anything beyond take me out and wake me up, so it hadn't got that serious. My anesthesiologist did some research, consulted with colleagues and came to the conclusion that she didn't think I had malignant hyperthermia. We retried the surgery months later and she used anesthetics that are non-triggering for malignant hyperthermia. According to her notes and letter I was running a temperature of 102.6 according to the probes before she even administered my anestesia the 2nd time around. She said my rectal temp on both attempts of operations showed a consistent 99 degree temperature which is the most accurate. My ACL operation went uneventful, I was in surgery for over 4 hours.
Fast forward to today. The anesthesiologist whom I met with said there is a muscle biopsy that can be done at certain testing centers around the country to determine if I truly have malignant hyperthermia (MH). But that it would probably push my surgery back a few weeks for them to do the test, as I have to go to their closes test center which is U.C. Davis. Apparently there is a whole association dealing with this (mhaus.org) and they even have doctors available for these anesthesiologists to contact 24 hours a day from the O.R. if there is an emergency. These guys are the experts of experts in MH. My guy called and talked to one of them, the guy didn't think it was MH. He said they also do patient counseling and to have me call and see if they would even recommend me to get tested. My anesthesiologist called another colleague who also didn't think it was MH.
So basically I have 3 options:
1) Get the muscle biopsy and wait to see what it says and then deal with the anesthetics after the result of that.
2) Proceed with regular general anesthetics.
3) Use non-triggering anesthetics similar to what my anesthesiologist used the 2nd go around for my knee surgery.
I asked him what is the drawback of doing option 3 and using the non-triggering meds. He said there is a possibility for heightened awareness during surgery. I experienced this with my knee surgery there were a couple times for split seconds where I heard drilling in the background, heard nurses talk. They weren't scary or painful, just very interesting. We're talking milliseconds of responsiveness here. Also he said it might take me an extra hour or two in order for them to get me awake afterward. He also said they have brain monitors now so they can detects to about 90% certainty that I'm waking up prior to doing so and they can give me more sedatives before it happens.
I said lets proceed with option 3. My rational was as follows:
* I've already gone through an operation with anesthetics that are non-triggering and I'm here to talk about it.
* I'll have to have surgery either way.
* To me there really isn't any downside risk to option 3 vs the other options. He said this was the way they always sedated people in the 80's for cadiac surgeries.
I am going to call mhaus.org tomorrow and also call my surgeon and just get his input. I can still call off the surgery and do the test. The doubts are mainly seeping in because one I elected to do this surgery myself, and second it gives me a way to chicken out with the fear. There is no justified rational for me to put off the surgery and take the test. I do think I will do the muscle biopsy so I can get clarity long term.
But if you put a gun to my head and if I was already tested and told that I don't have MH and given the choice of regular general anestesia or non-triggering anestesia administered to people with MH, I would choose the non-triggering in a heartbeat because I've been there and done that.
Please weigh in and tell me what you would do? This is the last thing I needed at this time and escape route.
Thanks.
Fast forward to today. The anesthesiologist whom I met with said there is a muscle biopsy that can be done at certain testing centers around the country to determine if I truly have malignant hyperthermia (MH). But that it would probably push my surgery back a few weeks for them to do the test, as I have to go to their closes test center which is U.C. Davis. Apparently there is a whole association dealing with this (mhaus.org) and they even have doctors available for these anesthesiologists to contact 24 hours a day from the O.R. if there is an emergency. These guys are the experts of experts in MH. My guy called and talked to one of them, the guy didn't think it was MH. He said they also do patient counseling and to have me call and see if they would even recommend me to get tested. My anesthesiologist called another colleague who also didn't think it was MH.
So basically I have 3 options:
1) Get the muscle biopsy and wait to see what it says and then deal with the anesthetics after the result of that.
2) Proceed with regular general anesthetics.
3) Use non-triggering anesthetics similar to what my anesthesiologist used the 2nd go around for my knee surgery.
I asked him what is the drawback of doing option 3 and using the non-triggering meds. He said there is a possibility for heightened awareness during surgery. I experienced this with my knee surgery there were a couple times for split seconds where I heard drilling in the background, heard nurses talk. They weren't scary or painful, just very interesting. We're talking milliseconds of responsiveness here. Also he said it might take me an extra hour or two in order for them to get me awake afterward. He also said they have brain monitors now so they can detects to about 90% certainty that I'm waking up prior to doing so and they can give me more sedatives before it happens.
I said lets proceed with option 3. My rational was as follows:
* I've already gone through an operation with anesthetics that are non-triggering and I'm here to talk about it.
* I'll have to have surgery either way.
* To me there really isn't any downside risk to option 3 vs the other options. He said this was the way they always sedated people in the 80's for cadiac surgeries.
I am going to call mhaus.org tomorrow and also call my surgeon and just get his input. I can still call off the surgery and do the test. The doubts are mainly seeping in because one I elected to do this surgery myself, and second it gives me a way to chicken out with the fear. There is no justified rational for me to put off the surgery and take the test. I do think I will do the muscle biopsy so I can get clarity long term.
But if you put a gun to my head and if I was already tested and told that I don't have MH and given the choice of regular general anestesia or non-triggering anestesia administered to people with MH, I would choose the non-triggering in a heartbeat because I've been there and done that.
Please weigh in and tell me what you would do? This is the last thing I needed at this time and escape route.
Thanks.
