Zachary Hayes81 said:So, basically, I can just show up with my own "self-diagnosis"—skipping the specialist referral and my primary care physician entirely—as long as I’m willing to shell out roughly $667 ?
An MRI—or honestly, any kind of radiology scan—isn't quite like walking into a portrait studio and telling the photographer, "Hey there, I'd like a quick shot of my ankle, please."😁
For a scan to be performed properly (especially an MRI, which is arguably the most complex procedure in this field), the radiologist really needs to review the findings from the specialist who ordered the test. Without that context, how can they know what specifically to look for or adjust the imaging protocol accordingly?
If you actually want your MRI to be done correctly, you should definitely bring along those specialist reports that prompted the scan in the first place.
Take a look at this regarding the child's age requirementshttp://www.almp.hr/upl/lijekovi/PIL/...-06-02-113.pdf
To be perfectly honest—and I mean this with all due respect—I highly doubt an OB-GYN would offer you any more insight than anyone else could. The most qualified expert for these specific technicalities would actually be a clinical pharmacologist—so, if this continues to weigh heavily on your mind, perhaps try reaching out to one?
I honestly don't think you need to be quite this worried—though I completely get why you are, since we're talking about a baby here, and every mother tends to worry—but look at it this way:
The manufacturer is legally required to list absolutely every possible side effect in the drug instructions, no matter how incredibly rare they might be.
Sulfadiazine is actually administered orally to young children when indicated—which results in much higher concentrations in the bloodstream—provided it's under strict medical supervision, of course.
Similarly, Dermazin cream would be used on a small child to treat burns.
The area you applied it to was quite small, wasn't it? Plus, the application time was brief; it's highly unlikely that such a minimal concentration of the active ingredient in the blood (which, by the way, begins processing in the liver almost immediately) could cause any harm to a nursing infant. Those types of serious side effects are primarily linked to the accumulation of the substance in the body—meaning they occur during prolonged use.
The only potential issue that comes to mind is a hypersensitivity reaction—essentially an allergy—but if that were the case, you would have noticed the reaction already.
Regarding medication labels in general: Since it is impossible to conduct actual clinical trials regarding a drug's impact on a fetus or a nursing infant, manufacturers protect themselves legally by stating that certain preparations should not be used during pregnancy or breastfeeding. The exception, of course, is for medications that are so widely used that so many pregnant and nursing women have taken them that retrospective analyses have concluded they aren't harmful.
In my opinion, the best course of action is to stop applying it, call the burn unit, and ask if there is a substitute cream available that is compatible with breastfeeding.
Amanda Nelson86 said:I am honestly going to lose my mind from worrying.
On Wednesday, I suffered a pretty severe burn and went to see my doctor—they cleaned it up, applied some burn cream, and told me I needed to come back every day for dressing changes. Since yesterday was the weekend, they just prescribed a cream so I could manage it at home. This morning, I went to apply it—because I always make sure to read the instructions first—only to find a warning stating that the cream shouldn't be used while breastfeeding because it can pass into the milk and cause serious harm!!!😲 😲 😲
The cream is called Dermazin. It was applied to a small patch of skin, about 2 inches by 2 inches, usually around noon—though the last application was just the afternoon before yesterday. During the day, I breastfeed somewhat frequently but briefly; he latches, pulls a little, and then he's done... but at night, he nurses quite heavily.
I am absolutely frantic with worry. I was thinking about heading over to the pediatrician's office—I'm not sure, though—would they even see me, or is that being totally excessive?! Should I give them a call instead?
Oh my goodness, what if I actually caused him harm?!???
I highly doubt you've caused any harm since it’s such a tiny area of skin—plus, the duration of application was likely too short for the medication levels in your bloodstream, or your milk, to reach a point where it could be dangerous.
Usually, those explicit warnings against using certain medications apply to the final trimester of pregnancy or when nursing infants under two months old. Your little one is older than that, isn't he?
Look at it this way: if the baby had been the one burned, wouldn't they likely use that same cream on him?
At this point, you really need to weigh whether it's better to pause nursing or stop treating the burn. Perhaps calling the pediatrician to ask is your best move?
You will always receive the physical film prints—though if you prefer a CD, that can be burned onto a DVD provided the computer connected to the MR machine has a disc burner installed😉.
Generally speaking, it is much more cost-effective to have the hospital—specifically the radiology department where you're being examined—burn a DVD for you (which runs about $0.67) rather than opting for two or three separate film prints (since a single film costs roughly $6.75).
The real headache arises if the doctor reviewing your results doesn't have the specific software required to view digital files, even though every clinic should at least have a negatoscope (that backlit viewing panel used for X-rays) available.
There’s always a bit of air in the digestive tract—it's just how things work. It all depends on what you've been eating, and even how fast you eat; sometimes people rush through a meal and end up swallowing quite a bit of air in the process. He was likely referring to the fact that intestinal gas can interfere with the clarity of an ultrasound scan—rather than suggesting there's some sort of underlying medical disorder.
Thickening of the intestinal wall actually has nothing to do with how fast you eat 😕—it’s typically an indicator of things like inflammatory bowel disease or similar conditions.
Ultrasound isn't really the gold standard for evaluating the intestinal wall; besides, a gynecologist is specifically trained in OB-GYN ultrasounds, not in analyzing other abdominal or pelvic organs.
If you're concerned about potential gut issues, my advice is to go see a gastroenterologist—they'll be able to order the right tests and get you the proper care you need.
Noah Morris2 said:I stopped by my doctor's office this afternoon—and mind you, I’m quite the skeptic who rarely takes anything at face value—but she told me the exact same thing. Now, I'm mostly just curious about any potential risks when it comes to working out. I head over to Central Park a few times a week for some running, along with a bit of push-ups and pull-ups... is it actually wise to keep up with those specific exercises given my condition?
It shouldn't be an issue for you—assuming, of course, that we are strictly talking about that specific fissure. You should approach it with confidence! In fact, when it comes to managing back pain, there really isn't a better remedy than staying active—it helps strengthen those paravertebral muscles (the ones right alongside your spine), doesn't it?
You’ve actually had this spinal gap since birth—you just didn't realize it🙂 because you weren't looking for anything specific.
A sudden movement can trigger a muscle spasm right along your spine, which might end up putting pressure on a nerve. Or, it could be a minor herniated disc causing that leg pain (which often doesn't even show up on a standard spinal X-ray).
When we are talking about women, nipple discharge can actually persist for years—especially if an ultrasound confirms some fibrocystic changes. It is actually quite common among women.
Of course, at least during the very first occurrence, a cytological analysis of the discharge is necessary. If the results come back benign, and if the appearance of the discharge doesn't change—then everything is fine.👍 Current medical consensus suggests that in these specific cases, there is no need to repeat the cytology every single year; it’s essentially just an increase in secretion from the glands.
Generally speaking, the hallmarks of benign discharge include a milky or yellowish color, or perhaps a clear appearance—and it is particularly reassuring if it occurs on both sides.
The warning signs to watch out for are any instances of bloody, brown, green, or black discharge—in those cases, a new analysis must be performed.
Since the original post mentioned this involves a guy, the situation is a bit different from a hormonal standpoint.
It’s most likely just a case of puberty—though one can never be too careful—so a full diagnostic workup is always necessary to rule out any other possibilities
Gynecomastia—which essentially means swelling or a "lump" behind the nipple area—is actually quite common among guys going through puberty (though it can happen later in life, too).
Generally speaking, it isn't cause for alarm; it usually just stems from a temporary hormonal imbalance while your body finds its equilibrium. What’s happening is the development of breast glandular tissue—something men don't typically have—and under certain hormonal influences, those glands might produce a tiny amount of discharge. As long as that discharge isn't bloody, brown, or black (which could indicate something forming inside the milk duct), there's usually no immediate worry.
You should definitely schedule an appointment with a pediatric endocrinologist. They will likely run some blood work to check your hormone levels, and they'll probably order a breast ultrasound to determine if the swelling is fatty tissue or glandular tissue—and to rule out any unusual growths—along with a cytology test on the discharge.
In most cases, doctors simply monitor the situation—unless there's a more significant hormonal issue at play—and it eventually resolves on its own.
I don't work in Chicago, but I’ll check in tomorrow to see what the situation is regarding restrooms near the imaging suites at the local hospitals—it sounds absolutely surreal to me that they wouldn't have a restroom available for that purpose.😕
So... the procedure here in the States—which should be more or less the same everywhere—goes like this:
You undress in a changing stall (you can stay in a T-shirt or an undershirt and some socks) and lie down on the exam table. Then, the radiology technician inserts a thin catheter into the rectum (about 6-7mm in diameter), uses X-rays to check the placement, and then slowly pumps the contrast medium through that tube—it's that same "chalky" stuff, specifically a barium sulfate suspension.
As it goes, the radiologist uses fluoroscopy to monitor how the contrast is moving through the intestines; they'll give you instructions to roll onto your left side, then your stomach, then your right side—essentially whatever positions best help that contrast flow from the rectum all the way to where the large intestine meets the small intestine. The radiologist tries to use as little contrast as possible to ensure the image quality is high (so no one is just pumping you full for no reason). Once the contrast has coated the entire large intestine, they begin gently pumping air through that same catheter (which stays in the rectum the whole time) to expand the bowel—again, the doctor will tell you how to turn so the air moves through properly—and then the radiologist takes images of all sections of the colon (once more, they'll guide your positioning to get the clearest view). The tech removes the catheter and sends you to the restroom (hopefully located right by the imaging room) to empty out; once you're done, you head back, and they might take one final follow-up image after you've cleared everything. And that's really it! You might still be passing some of that "chalk" throughout the day, but if you clear out well immediately after the exam, you shouldn't have much trouble getting home.
Now, as for how long it lasts... well, it varies by patient. Let's say 15 minutes is the average, though I've seen perfectly prepared patients who were finished in five, and I've also seen it stretch past the half-hour mark if the contrast gets "stuck" in a certain part of the intestine—in those cases, the doctor might lightly massage your abdomen or ask you to switch sides to get things moving.
The most uncomfortable part is the beginning, because having the contrast in the rectum creates a very strong urge to go. Once the contrast flows into the rest of the intestine, that feeling eases up. Then, you'll feel another surge when the air is being pumped in, which also subsides once the air distributes itself. It does happen occasionally that patients can't hold the contrast and start losing it right there on the table, but that's usually elderly or frail patients.
To make the whole thing as painless as possible, the most important things are to clean yourself out thoroughly (just like for a colonoscopy) and try to relax 🙄 during the exam, because if you tense up, the contrast tends to get stuck. Oh—and squeeze tight if you feel like you're about to have an accident!
I’ve never actually undergone an irigography myself (though I have 😉), but I’ve assisted with them quite a few times.
It isn't something you can do while under anesthesia—mainly because you need to be able to roll onto your side, your stomach, or your back to ensure the contrast spreads properly throughout the large intestine.
As for whether it hurts... from what I’ve observed with patients, generally no—though, of course, everyone’s pain tolerance is different. It’s more of an uncomfortable sensation, specifically that sudden urge to use the restroom; this is most intense right at the start when most of the contrast is still in the rectum, but once it moves further along, things settle down.
The absolute key to the whole process is how well the patient prepares—meaning, if they clear out their bowels thoroughly beforehand, the procedure itself can be finished incredibly fast.
There is a restroom located right inside the imaging suite, so patients can take care of business immediately after we finish.
In general, most patients handle the procedure quite well (even children have no trouble), whereas it can be a bit tougher for the elderly or those with limited mobility—though that’s usually due to their overall frailty rather than the irigography itself.
Bad_and_Wrong said:Excuse me???? 😱 That sounds absolutely ridiculous! 😁 How on earth would anyone even get that???? 🤔 I mean, really, that’s just gross! 🤣
No, but seriously—how is that even possible??? 🤷
It’s because the anatomical distance between the anus and the urethra is quite small in women—which means bacteria from the digestive tract can migrate to the urinary tract fairly easily. This is actually why little girls are taught to always wipe from front to back. Also, some studies suggest that wearing thongs can increase the risk of transferring those bacteria...
It sounds like it could be kidney stones or perhaps a UTI...
I am assuming you are a student—so your primary doctor is likely back in your hometown? If you don't start feeling better within a day or two, it would honestly be best to head to an Urgent Care facility. Urinary tract infections aren't something to take lightly—especially since they can cause real trouble if they aren't fully cleared up properly.
Eric Lewis said:My mom just went in for a chest X-ray and this was the report she got back:
"On the standing summation image of the thoracic organs, there is a visible, pronounced horizontal interlobar fissure on the right side. The diaphragmatic domes show normal, sharp contours. The lateral costophrenic sinuses are well-differentiated and clear. The hilar vascular pattern appears appropriate. There is an enlarged cardiac shadow and aortic configuration."
I’m completely lost here—could someone please break this down for me? I don't have the slightest clue what any of this actually means. Thanks in advance for the help.
Aside from the fact that the heart looks slightly enlarged (which could easily be due to high blood pressure or similar issues), everything else seems fine? These are mostly just standard radiological terms used to describe a normal finding.👍
To put it quite simply—it’s just a tiny bit of scar tissue. It usually shows up as nothing more than an incidental finding, which means—provided it isn't part of some larger growth—it doesn't actually signify anything at all.