In article <
[email protected]>,
WB <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 01:29:00 GMT, Orac
> <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <
[email protected]>,
> >WB <
[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Just wondering why a gall bladder/liver flush was not
> >> the recommended treatment ?
> >>
> >> The news reports that he had gall stones, and the
> >> doctors removed his gallbladder.
> >>
> >> Why choose surgery when a simple flush would do ?
> >>
> >> Just wondering,
> >
> >Actually, John Ashcroft had a rather severe case of
> >gallstone pancreatitis. He was in the intensive care
> >unit. It's a very appropriate reminder of the potential
> >REAL complications of untreated gallstone disease
> >(gallstones treated with "liver flushes" count as
> >"untreated," in my book). He could well have died.
> >Gallstone pancreatitis has a very high recurrence rate
> >(around 50% within a couple of months)--unless the
> >gallbladder is removed. Consequently, the standard
> >treatment is to support the patient with fluid,
> >antibiotics, and intravenous nutrition until the
> >pancreatitis settles down a bit (usually 4-8 days) and
> >then remove the gallbladder.
>
>
> So gallstone induced pancreatitis can be a life
> threatening condition ?
Indeed. Although most cases of gallstone pancreatitis are
mild and resolve without sequelae, 10-20% are serious, the
overall mortality is around 4%. Mortality is markedly higher
in those over 70, about four times higher.
Look up Ranson's criteria on the web to see the factors that
influence survival in acute pancreatitis. They apply to
gallstone pancreatitis, too:
http://www.ncemi.org/cgi-
ncemi/edecision.pl?TheCommand=Load&NewFile=ranso
ns_criteria_for_pancreatitis&BlankTop=1
> Duly noted that the alties are suddenly and mysteriously
> silent on this subject.
Of course.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do
|you inconvenience me with questions?"