Nancy sez: "I only mentioned this method to Soccermom44 because hre mother had a scar tissue situation from having had radiation treatments. Just another avenue for her to explore ."
Good point, and I did read that post after I responded with this... I understood better after that why one might make scar size/location an issue. My point is that I wouldn't go chasing controversial new therapies just to have 3" less of a scar. On one hand, the conventional "chest crack" (love that) isn't 12". But it *is* only 6 (ish), which is NOTHING, considering it stems from a procedure you had to keep you alive. I was amazed the number of people who wanted to know "if it left a big scar" and "could they see it" and who, when I peel my shirt off around the pool this summer, look, and always respond, "wow, that scar isn't as bad as I thought it would be--you're lucky!" As if the "scar" is the most critical leftover of my ordeal. Far more distressing to me, if you want to talk physical disfigurements, is my skinny arms and flat chest and ever-spreading gut now, as I can't go/haven't been going to the gym for the last 9 months...
I didn't mean to sound like a know-it-all with that. As I said in another post, I trusted my surgeon implicitly with all decisions. Not my usual M.O., to be sure, but at the time it was necessary to make these decisions, I was so sick, and time was running so short, I didn't worry about it. So when his recommendation for me was the Ross, I didn't question that either. Afterward, as I've been finding folks on the internet to discuss this with, some have been incrudulous: "You let them do what?!?!? You know now you have not one, but TWO valves you're gonna have to have fixed again, and probably as soon as 5 years from now..."
And I *hate* when they say that to me. So, my sincerest apologies if I sounded like that in my coments to you and soccermom.
Scott