oopsyadaisy said:
I went to a marysville site and actually watched a video of this guy get a mininmal invasive surgery done on his valve and they repa
ired it not replaced it. They said that over 80 per cent of valves CAN be repaired. Why doctors are so quick to stick in all these other valves is most likely because you will be back and you need to come back so they will get paid. If I lived in the states I would have gone to marysville just so I could get mine dealt with.
I agree with Steve that they wouldn't do a replacement for the money. Even if one would assume they'd do something for the money, there's really no money there for them to get more of. There is some steady money in INR testing, but that would not go to the surgeon, but rather to a lab, a PCP, or a regular cardiologists' group, to which they're not normally associated. Plus, a failed repair is also a rebooked surgery, so there is still the opportunity to see the patient again. So, there's no percentage in it for them.
Besides, good surgeons don't need repeat business as far as I can see; their dance cards seem to always be full without it.
I'm certainly not a cardiologist or a surgeon, but from what I've seen on these pages, 80% sounds like an aggressive statement, unless it was applied toward a very specific part of the mitral community. This appears particularly so when there are so many different types of mitral injury.
When it can happen, repair is surely the best course. However, as with all of the other remedies we discuss on these forums, bear in mind that even this doesn't always work as the surgeon wishes. Even when the outcome looks good at close-up time, the proof awaits in recovery. Pick a surgeon you trust in a facility that is well set up for this type of surgery. That's about the best you can do for the most part.
Best wishes,