Liung
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2013
- Messages
- 247
- Reaction score
- 111
More good news: the oncology surgeon doesn’t think they’ll need to take his entire ear. He’ll be missing a really awkward chunk of it, since they’ll have to remove some cartilage to make sure the skin can be pulled over, but he does actually get to keep the majority of his ear!
“But wasn’t the point of doing the cytology to know that if it was malignant, to take bigger margins, and considering its location therefore take the entire ear?”
Well apparently for malignant tumours they’d usually go up to 3 cm margins, but considering the location 3 cm wouldn’t be possible even if they removed the entire ear. There’s just not enough skin to take that much and then get the incision closed. So they think they can just do 1 cm margins, and if histopathology comes back saying they haven’t gotten it all, they will suggest radiation.
... so why did I do the cytology?? Literally the reason they gave for the cytology was because if it’s malignant it’ll need larger margins, and so if we do the surgery without cytology first and then find out they didn’t get it all, he’d have to go through a second surgery to get the rest.
But now despite results showing its malignant they’re telling me that they are just going to go ahead with 1cm margins. Okay, knowing it’s malignant meant knowing to screen for metastasis, but we could have also known it was malignant after the surgery when it came up as such during the histopathology???
Yes there’s the whole “if you’d gone ahead with the surgery and it had already metastasized he might not have survived”, but at the point they suggested the cytology to me, everyone was pretty sure it was no big deal, and they were also telling me that one of the drawbacks of cytology was that it can be pretty unreliable and give inconclusive results. Even the results we got only suggested malignancy based on a couple cells in the sample.
I dunno obviously just doing the surgery and having him not survive it due to metastatic tumours would have sucked, but I feel vaguely scammed that they didn’t determine ahead of time that the size of incision wouldn’t be affected by cytology results, when they told me that was the main reason to do the cytology. The fact that he could not survive the surgery due to metastasis wasn’t brought up until after the cytology results came back and they wanted to do screening.
I might have gone ahead with the cytology anyway on the basis that if results had come back as benign, they could take smaller margins, and that actually was the deciding factor for me to agree to the cytology: possibility of less trauma and recovery time. But THEY didn’t tell me that. I came up with it on my own and asked them if I was right.
I’m still highly satisfied with the quality of expertise and care Lahi receives at the OVC, but DAMN they are test-happy.
“But wasn’t the point of doing the cytology to know that if it was malignant, to take bigger margins, and considering its location therefore take the entire ear?”
Well apparently for malignant tumours they’d usually go up to 3 cm margins, but considering the location 3 cm wouldn’t be possible even if they removed the entire ear. There’s just not enough skin to take that much and then get the incision closed. So they think they can just do 1 cm margins, and if histopathology comes back saying they haven’t gotten it all, they will suggest radiation.
... so why did I do the cytology?? Literally the reason they gave for the cytology was because if it’s malignant it’ll need larger margins, and so if we do the surgery without cytology first and then find out they didn’t get it all, he’d have to go through a second surgery to get the rest.
But now despite results showing its malignant they’re telling me that they are just going to go ahead with 1cm margins. Okay, knowing it’s malignant meant knowing to screen for metastasis, but we could have also known it was malignant after the surgery when it came up as such during the histopathology???
Yes there’s the whole “if you’d gone ahead with the surgery and it had already metastasized he might not have survived”, but at the point they suggested the cytology to me, everyone was pretty sure it was no big deal, and they were also telling me that one of the drawbacks of cytology was that it can be pretty unreliable and give inconclusive results. Even the results we got only suggested malignancy based on a couple cells in the sample.
I dunno obviously just doing the surgery and having him not survive it due to metastatic tumours would have sucked, but I feel vaguely scammed that they didn’t determine ahead of time that the size of incision wouldn’t be affected by cytology results, when they told me that was the main reason to do the cytology. The fact that he could not survive the surgery due to metastasis wasn’t brought up until after the cytology results came back and they wanted to do screening.
I might have gone ahead with the cytology anyway on the basis that if results had come back as benign, they could take smaller margins, and that actually was the deciding factor for me to agree to the cytology: possibility of less trauma and recovery time. But THEY didn’t tell me that. I came up with it on my own and asked them if I was right.
I’m still highly satisfied with the quality of expertise and care Lahi receives at the OVC, but DAMN they are test-happy.