kds0
01-29-2008, 09:54 PM
I met with my doctor today to go over my recent ultrasound results. It showed no gallstones present but several largish polyps. He's referring me to a surgeon.
He told me polyps are generally asymptomatic but not in my case as I show all signs of gallstones.
Up until today I was convinced I had gallstones and before today I've never even heard of polyps.
Is removing the gallbladder the best choice in this situation since I am experiencing symptoms?
He told me polyps are generally asymptomatic but not in my case as I show all signs of gallstones.
Up until today I was convinced I had gallstones and before today I've never even heard of polyps.
Is removing the gallbladder the best choice in this situation since I am experiencing symptoms?
Sponsor
eihcet
01-29-2008, 10:07 PM
From what I've read, it depends on the size of the polyps. Mine are <1mm and considered nothing to be concerned about. However, They can't actually test the polyp for cancer so they go by size as to recommend whether or not the GB should be removed. Did they say how large they were? http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/gallbladder-polyps/AN01044
Collector167
01-29-2008, 10:21 PM
Sometimes the ultrasound cannot tell the difference between polyps and gallstones. In my case I have at least one of which they are not certain.
eihcet is correct that the size of the polyp is the key, if they are large there is a concern about cancer. While gallbladder cancer is rather rare, neverthless, the Dr's will probably suggest surgery to remove the gallbladder just to play it safe.
eihcet is correct that the size of the polyp is the key, if they are large there is a concern about cancer. While gallbladder cancer is rather rare, neverthless, the Dr's will probably suggest surgery to remove the gallbladder just to play it safe.