5 ms·

" I'm not a medical person"-then I'm not going to take your scare mongering anecdotal evidence.

bsder 11y ago
Um, the complications from general anesthesia are not fiction. There is a reason why a general anesthetics normally require the presence of an anesthesiologist. A local is always a better option if available. It's less invasive and has fewer complications.
- existencebox 11y ago
  Unfortunately for some of us; it's not an option. I have an extremely physical neurologically induced response ("weak stomach" more technically), but to the point that during a minor growth removal I ended up vomiting continuously while passing in and out; needing a day in the hospital on an IV drip for recovery. (couldn't stand up and walk out, despite trying.) This is not meant as a "pity me" by any extent, I find it hilarious given that my parents would have liked me to be a doctor and enjoy sharing the story. However, it puts me in a "screwed if I do, screwed if I don't" situation when it comes to going under, and for something like wisdom teeth; they can't really have me going all human-fountain on them. In short, the "if available" bit is the kicker, I'm curious enough to be googling around for non-anecdata research on the actual risk distributions since while comments like yours certainly make me nervous, after years of going under with no issues and doctors recommending it given my situation, I wonder to what extent I'm stressing myself out over a very uncommon occurrence.
  - bsder 11y ago
    > I wonder to what extent I'm stressing myself out over a very uncommon occurrence. Probably too much. Modern medicine actually does work for the vast majority of people--"Hospital does 42 surgeries today--all of them went just fine" never gets reported. However, humans are biological organisms with lots of variations. Exceptions always exist. If you've gone under more than once without complications, you're probably mostly in the clear. It means that a whole host of things that can go wrong have already been screened against. One of the big ones is having a problem with your pseudocholinesterase but no family history to tip off the anesthesiologist that this might be an issue (I think they screen for this now). As you point out, the issue is also "if available". In your case, it's what needs to be done, so don't stress over it. The complications of NOT doing it are far worse for you, as you point out. However, too many people just go "put me out" without the idea that, yes, complications do occur and, really, less invasive is almost always better.
sergiotapia 11y ago
One slip up by your anesthesiologist and you are kaput. Doctors are people who make mistakes. Minimise risk.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  One slip up by your anesthesiologist and you are kaput. Doctor's are people who make mistakes. Minimise risk. Technically true, but the kind of sedation used for wisdom teeth removal is nowhere near as disruptive to your body as the general anesthesia you'd be under for, say, open heart surgery. The kind of sedation used for that is the same (or very close) to what they use for placing stents, doing arthroscopic surgery, etc. I can't even imagine how many patients are sedated every day around the US and there doesn't seem to be any epidemic of people having adverse reactions.

bsder 11y ago

Um, the complications from general anesthesia are not fiction. There is a reason why a general anesthetics normally require the presence of an anesthesiologist. A local is always a better option if available. It's less invasive and has fewer complications.

existencebox 11y ago
Unfortunately for some of us; it's not an option. I have an extremely physical neurologically induced response ("weak stomach" more technically), but to the point that during a minor growth removal I ended up vomiting continuously while passing in and out; needing a day in the hospital on an IV drip for recovery. (couldn't stand up and walk out, despite trying.) This is not meant as a "pity me" by any extent, I find it hilarious given that my parents would have liked me to be a doctor and enjoy sharing the story. However, it puts me in a "screwed if I do, screwed if I don't" situation when it comes to going under, and for something like wisdom teeth; they can't really have me going all human-fountain on them. In short, the "if available" bit is the kicker, I'm curious enough to be googling around for non-anecdata research on the actual risk distributions since while comments like yours certainly make me nervous, after years of going under with no issues and doctors recommending it given my situation, I wonder to what extent I'm stressing myself out over a very uncommon occurrence.
- bsder 11y ago
  > I wonder to what extent I'm stressing myself out over a very uncommon occurrence. Probably too much. Modern medicine actually does work for the vast majority of people--"Hospital does 42 surgeries today--all of them went just fine" never gets reported. However, humans are biological organisms with lots of variations. Exceptions always exist. If you've gone under more than once without complications, you're probably mostly in the clear. It means that a whole host of things that can go wrong have already been screened against. One of the big ones is having a problem with your pseudocholinesterase but no family history to tip off the anesthesiologist that this might be an issue (I think they screen for this now). As you point out, the issue is also "if available". In your case, it's what needs to be done, so don't stress over it. The complications of NOT doing it are far worse for you, as you point out. However, too many people just go "put me out" without the idea that, yes, complications do occur and, really, less invasive is almost always better.

sergiotapia 11y ago

One slip up by your anesthesiologist and you are kaput. Doctors are people who make mistakes. Minimise risk.

mindcrime 11y ago
One slip up by your anesthesiologist and you are kaput. Doctor's are people who make mistakes. Minimise risk. Technically true, but the kind of sedation used for wisdom teeth removal is nowhere near as disruptive to your body as the general anesthesia you'd be under for, say, open heart surgery. The kind of sedation used for that is the same (or very close) to what they use for placing stents, doing arthroscopic surgery, etc. I can't even imagine how many patients are sedated every day around the US and there doesn't seem to be any epidemic of people having adverse reactions.