3 ms·

Interesting to me on a personal level. I have a recently born son who underwent surgery at 2 months. The procedure itself is incredibly simple and safe; the ane

by mankyd 12y ago

Interesting to me on a personal level. I have a recently born son who underwent surgery at 2 months. The procedure itself is incredibly simple and safe; the anesthesia was the part that actually concerned us the most, (and my father is a trained anesthesiologist to boot). There was a non-surgical alternative to what we did, but it was recommended against. It has a much lower success rate and is the difference between a day in the hospital and several months of carefully measured feeding. Even equipped with this knowledge, I suspect that I would make the same decision. It is more important to me that my son be physically healthy and thriving than anything. I am curious if others would make the decision differently.

SkyMarshal 12y ago
Without knowing any of the details, >several months of carefully measured feeding. That doesn't sound that bad, at least as a temporary solution to an otherwise permanent problem? I've been through this before - any time a doc recommends surgery it's worth getting second and third opinions. Sometimes the first one is that guy with the hammer to whom every problem looks like a nail.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  That doesn't sound bad when taken by itself. Infants, however, are interesting things. They may be sponges, but if I've learned anything in the last couple of years since my wife and I had our first child, it's that their development occurs in weird, non-linear ways, and requires a lot of effort and practice on their part. Stressing them out severly can (and does) impair development. Aside from that, I suspect I know what condition the original commenter is talking about--or at least my wife and I had a child who, at roughly 5 weeks, was given an almost identical choice for a condition he had. This particular condition is such that food either cannot pass out of the stomach into the intestine, or can only do so in quantities insufficient to provide adequate nutrition. It comes with a variety of nasty side effects, such as severe projectile vomiting when the stomach-digested food accumulates (hence the "carefully measured feedings") that, long term, will also damage the esophagus. I can only speculate about the kinds of developmental problems an infant may incur when he is stressed out over basic sustenance for the first weeks or months of key developmental milestones, but to me the choice was a no-brainer for the surgical option. I would do it again, even given this study, without hesitation.
- mankyd 12y ago
  The condition was Pyloric Stenosis. The problem isn't the feeding itself, it's the rate of success; it's meaningfully lower. Similarly, it takes significantly longer to fix, yet the condition is relatively urgent as it results in malnutrition. Non-surgical intervention still occurs, but is generally reserved for cases where surgery is otherwise considered too risky. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/937263-treatment http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/937263-treatment

by mankyd 12y ago

SkyMarshal 12y ago

Without knowing any of the details, >several months of carefully measured feeding. That doesn't sound that bad, at least as a temporary solution to an otherwise permanent problem? I've been through this before - any time a doc recommends surgery it's worth getting second and third opinions. Sometimes the first one is that guy with the hammer to whom every problem looks like a nail.

Iftheshoefits 12y ago
That doesn't sound bad when taken by itself. Infants, however, are interesting things. They may be sponges, but if I've learned anything in the last couple of years since my wife and I had our first child, it's that their development occurs in weird, non-linear ways, and requires a lot of effort and practice on their part. Stressing them out severly can (and does) impair development. Aside from that, I suspect I know what condition the original commenter is talking about--or at least my wife and I had a child who, at roughly 5 weeks, was given an almost identical choice for a condition he had. This particular condition is such that food either cannot pass out of the stomach into the intestine, or can only do so in quantities insufficient to provide adequate nutrition. It comes with a variety of nasty side effects, such as severe projectile vomiting when the stomach-digested food accumulates (hence the "carefully measured feedings") that, long term, will also damage the esophagus. I can only speculate about the kinds of developmental problems an infant may incur when he is stressed out over basic sustenance for the first weeks or months of key developmental milestones, but to me the choice was a no-brainer for the surgical option. I would do it again, even given this study, without hesitation.
mankyd 12y ago
The condition was Pyloric Stenosis. The problem isn't the feeding itself, it's the rate of success; it's meaningfully lower. Similarly, it takes significantly longer to fix, yet the condition is relatively urgent as it results in malnutrition. Non-surgical intervention still occurs, but is generally reserved for cases where surgery is otherwise considered too risky. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/937263-treatment http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/937263-treatment