Hi Ladies..........I have copies of all my records from my old gynecologist who did my hysterectomy. I saw him for 7 years prior to my hyst and totally trusted him when he told me that I needed to have the hyst. Prior to my surgery he told me that when he did my tubligation in 99' that he had seen an area of endometriosis and had noted it on my surgical report at the time (he never mentioned this to me after my surgery in 99', he told me this in 02') and that is why he was so adament that I needed to have the hyst done. My new dh and I at the time were discussing a tubal reversal. I agreed to an Exploratory laparotomy to find the source of my pain, with the agreement that IF he found it necessary to do a hyst that he had my permission. In my surgical report from my hyst, he says there was endometriosis present and a large fibroid within the uterus.
I was reading over all of my old records from his office last night and my surgical report from my tubal mentions NOTHING about me having endo or anything about him seeing or suspecting endo, but when I was in his office that day when he said I needed to have the hyst, he was supposedly reading this to me directly off of my surgical report from 99'. Also, when I looked at the pathology report from my hyst it says "all tissues NEGATIVE for endometriosis" and it also says "all specimens unremarkable".
My question is: I know if there had been endo present that it would have shown up on the pathology report right? but what about this fibroid that my Dr. mentions in his surgical report that was inside of my uterus. If there was a fibroid wouldn't that be on the pathology report too?
I saw another gyn after my hyst for continuing pain and brought with me a copy of my pathology report, after reading it, he was very curt and somewhat rude to me and wanted to know why I had a hyst to begin with and said that my pathology report showed that nothing was wrong with anything that was removed.(Needless to say I didn't go back to him) I found out after my hyst that my gyn who did the surgery has been sued quite a few times for medical malpractice. Not that I plan to do that but I am wondering now if he made up all of this stuff just to talk me into the hyst (when actually my problem turned out to be a hernia) and shouldn't the things on his surgical report jive with the pathology report?
Thanks in advance to anyone who is knowledgable about this stuff.