Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 22, 2011 at 1:27 PM in reply to: OT: how disruptive is for kids to change school districts? #680441March 22, 2011 at 1:27 PM in reply to: OT: how disruptive is for kids to change school districts? #680790
eavesdropper
Participant[quote=Rustico] I almost started a thread on the topic of moving the child up, so this thread is interesting to me.[/quote]
Rustico, what’s this “almost” stuff? Go ahead and start one. I, too, think it’s a discussion-worthy topic, and almost sure to generate some intriguing discourse within the Piggs feedlot.
Go for it!!
March 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM in reply to: OT: how disruptive is for kids to change school districts? #679282ParticipantSimplistic as it sounds, it depends on the child. I have two sons. My older son was traumatized for several months when we moved to California from Pennsylvania. He was 18 months old when we moved. My other son was moved from Ohio to Florida in his first year of high school. He had no problems at all.
Every kid is different. I’d look at how each of your children adjusts to changes in their environment or routine, even those of a very small nature. Past experiences are the best predictors of future behavior.
Unless your children are emotionally fragile (and by that I mean “diagnosable”) in some way, I’d move to a district that you believe would be better for them, socially and academically, in the long run. And there’s no question that having a parent at home in the evening who isn’t tired out from a long commute (or, worse yet, still stuck in traffic) will be much more beneficial for them.
If you haven’t done so yet, I’d recommend that you speak with several of their teachers and counselors at their current school(s) to see if there are any issues that might prove problematic if you make the change you are considering. The other thing I’d suggest is, where possible, to make the kids part of the decision-making process. Being a kid can be scary: kids can start to act out when they feel like they have no control over what happens in their lives. Keep in mind that I am not advising you to ask your children for their permission to move. Believing that you are the adult and parent, I am of the strong opinion that this is YOUR decision to make. But perhaps you can include your children in the choice of a house, when you’ve narrowed it down to 2 or 3. Or let them research extracurricular activities in the new neighborhood, and choose one or two in which to participate.
Whatever it is, don’t discuss the pros and cons of moving with them, or involve them in conversations about which school district would be best, etc. These are adult decisions, and having them hanging above them will only create anxiety in their minds. Kids have much more difficulty dealing with uncertainties in their lives than they do with changes stemming from decisions made by parents who clearly demonstrate their love and support for them. It seems evident to me, by the questions you raise in your post, that you’re in that category of parent. Good luck!
March 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM in reply to: OT: how disruptive is for kids to change school districts? #679338ParticipantSimplistic as it sounds, it depends on the child. I have two sons. My older son was traumatized for several months when we moved to California from Pennsylvania. He was 18 months old when we moved. My other son was moved from Ohio to Florida in his first year of high school. He had no problems at all.
Every kid is different. I’d look at how each of your children adjusts to changes in their environment or routine, even those of a very small nature. Past experiences are the best predictors of future behavior.
Unless your children are emotionally fragile (and by that I mean “diagnosable”) in some way, I’d move to a district that you believe would be better for them, socially and academically, in the long run. And there’s no question that having a parent at home in the evening who isn’t tired out from a long commute (or, worse yet, still stuck in traffic) will be much more beneficial for them.
If you haven’t done so yet, I’d recommend that you speak with several of their teachers and counselors at their current school(s) to see if there are any issues that might prove problematic if you make the change you are considering. The other thing I’d suggest is, where possible, to make the kids part of the decision-making process. Being a kid can be scary: kids can start to act out when they feel like they have no control over what happens in their lives. Keep in mind that I am not advising you to ask your children for their permission to move. Believing that you are the adult and parent, I am of the strong opinion that this is YOUR decision to make. But perhaps you can include your children in the choice of a house, when you’ve narrowed it down to 2 or 3. Or let them research extracurricular activities in the new neighborhood, and choose one or two in which to participate.
Whatever it is, don’t discuss the pros and cons of moving with them, or involve them in conversations about which school district would be best, etc. These are adult decisions, and having them hanging above them will only create anxiety in their minds. Kids have much more difficulty dealing with uncertainties in their lives than they do with changes stemming from decisions made by parents who clearly demonstrate their love and support for them. It seems evident to me, by the questions you raise in your post, that you’re in that category of parent. Good luck!
March 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM in reply to: OT: how disruptive is for kids to change school districts? #679948ParticipantSimplistic as it sounds, it depends on the child. I have two sons. My older son was traumatized for several months when we moved to California from Pennsylvania. He was 18 months old when we moved. My other son was moved from Ohio to Florida in his first year of high school. He had no problems at all.
Every kid is different. I’d look at how each of your children adjusts to changes in their environment or routine, even those of a very small nature. Past experiences are the best predictors of future behavior.
Unless your children are emotionally fragile (and by that I mean “diagnosable”) in some way, I’d move to a district that you believe would be better for them, socially and academically, in the long run. And there’s no question that having a parent at home in the evening who isn’t tired out from a long commute (or, worse yet, still stuck in traffic) will be much more beneficial for them.
If you haven’t done so yet, I’d recommend that you speak with several of their teachers and counselors at their current school(s) to see if there are any issues that might prove problematic if you make the change you are considering. The other thing I’d suggest is, where possible, to make the kids part of the decision-making process. Being a kid can be scary: kids can start to act out when they feel like they have no control over what happens in their lives. Keep in mind that I am not advising you to ask your children for their permission to move. Believing that you are the adult and parent, I am of the strong opinion that this is YOUR decision to make. But perhaps you can include your children in the choice of a house, when you’ve narrowed it down to 2 or 3. Or let them research extracurricular activities in the new neighborhood, and choose one or two in which to participate.
Whatever it is, don’t discuss the pros and cons of moving with them, or involve them in conversations about which school district would be best, etc. These are adult decisions, and having them hanging above them will only create anxiety in their minds. Kids have much more difficulty dealing with uncertainties in their lives than they do with changes stemming from decisions made by parents who clearly demonstrate their love and support for them. It seems evident to me, by the questions you raise in your post, that you’re in that category of parent. Good luck!
March 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM in reply to: OT: how disruptive is for kids to change school districts? #680086ParticipantSimplistic as it sounds, it depends on the child. I have two sons. My older son was traumatized for several months when we moved to California from Pennsylvania. He was 18 months old when we moved. My other son was moved from Ohio to Florida in his first year of high school. He had no problems at all.
Every kid is different. I’d look at how each of your children adjusts to changes in their environment or routine, even those of a very small nature. Past experiences are the best predictors of future behavior.
Unless your children are emotionally fragile (and by that I mean “diagnosable”) in some way, I’d move to a district that you believe would be better for them, socially and academically, in the long run. And there’s no question that having a parent at home in the evening who isn’t tired out from a long commute (or, worse yet, still stuck in traffic) will be much more beneficial for them.
If you haven’t done so yet, I’d recommend that you speak with several of their teachers and counselors at their current school(s) to see if there are any issues that might prove problematic if you make the change you are considering. The other thing I’d suggest is, where possible, to make the kids part of the decision-making process. Being a kid can be scary: kids can start to act out when they feel like they have no control over what happens in their lives. Keep in mind that I am not advising you to ask your children for their permission to move. Believing that you are the adult and parent, I am of the strong opinion that this is YOUR decision to make. But perhaps you can include your children in the choice of a house, when you’ve narrowed it down to 2 or 3. Or let them research extracurricular activities in the new neighborhood, and choose one or two in which to participate.
Whatever it is, don’t discuss the pros and cons of moving with them, or involve them in conversations about which school district would be best, etc. These are adult decisions, and having them hanging above them will only create anxiety in their minds. Kids have much more difficulty dealing with uncertainties in their lives than they do with changes stemming from decisions made by parents who clearly demonstrate their love and support for them. It seems evident to me, by the questions you raise in your post, that you’re in that category of parent. Good luck!
March 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM in reply to: OT: how disruptive is for kids to change school districts? #680437ParticipantSimplistic as it sounds, it depends on the child. I have two sons. My older son was traumatized for several months when we moved to California from Pennsylvania. He was 18 months old when we moved. My other son was moved from Ohio to Florida in his first year of high school. He had no problems at all.
Every kid is different. I’d look at how each of your children adjusts to changes in their environment or routine, even those of a very small nature. Past experiences are the best predictors of future behavior.
Unless your children are emotionally fragile (and by that I mean “diagnosable”) in some way, I’d move to a district that you believe would be better for them, socially and academically, in the long run. And there’s no question that having a parent at home in the evening who isn’t tired out from a long commute (or, worse yet, still stuck in traffic) will be much more beneficial for them.
If you haven’t done so yet, I’d recommend that you speak with several of their teachers and counselors at their current school(s) to see if there are any issues that might prove problematic if you make the change you are considering. The other thing I’d suggest is, where possible, to make the kids part of the decision-making process. Being a kid can be scary: kids can start to act out when they feel like they have no control over what happens in their lives. Keep in mind that I am not advising you to ask your children for their permission to move. Believing that you are the adult and parent, I am of the strong opinion that this is YOUR decision to make. But perhaps you can include your children in the choice of a house, when you’ve narrowed it down to 2 or 3. Or let them research extracurricular activities in the new neighborhood, and choose one or two in which to participate.
Whatever it is, don’t discuss the pros and cons of moving with them, or involve them in conversations about which school district would be best, etc. These are adult decisions, and having them hanging above them will only create anxiety in their minds. Kids have much more difficulty dealing with uncertainties in their lives than they do with changes stemming from decisions made by parents who clearly demonstrate their love and support for them. It seems evident to me, by the questions you raise in your post, that you’re in that category of parent. Good luck!
March 21, 2011 at 7:21 AM in reply to: OT – Should the government fund the press, the arts and the sciences? #678945Participant[quote=CA renter] …Too many people are ignorant about the facts, and they will insist that private corporations are what drive scientific research and create innovative technologies. What so many don’t know is that the majority of basic research is funded by the government. There would be very little innovation if the government wasn’t there to support the often unprofitable basic research that is required to jump-start the more marketable and profitable R&D…..
[/quote]You’ve got them dead to rights on this, CAR. The vast majority of basic science research is being funded by the government, while the private sector sits back and cherry picks the technologies that guarantee profits with no risk. Given the complexity of much of the scientific research these days, caution is understandable. There aren’t too many entities out there that can afford to sink stockholder profits into what can, and does, often turn out to be empty bottomless pits. But science will not advance if no risk is assumed, and it appears that the government alone is willing to take on that risk.
That being said, these same private sector entities need to knock off the John Galt fantasy role-playing and stop laying claim to intellectual property they had no part in producing. And that includes their raping of the public by holding the fruits of taxpayer-funded research for ransom, a tactic in which K-V Pharmaceuticals appears to be engaged.
And while we’re on the topic of government-funded basic research….I really wish politicians and talking heads would STFU when it comes to sounding off on science about which they are totally clueless. The image of Sarah Palin snorting derisively while brimming with outrage over …FRUIT FLY RESEARCH!!!….continues to haunt my nightly periods of N1 sleep. Unfortunately she is not alone in believing herself equipped to make such blanket statements. There’s nothing wrong with a little watchdog activity in an attempt to save taxpayer money. But these boneheaded morons have succeeding in making their mindless followers suspicious of anything relating to science, or academic/intellectual pursuits.
March 21, 2011 at 7:21 AM in reply to: OT – Should the government fund the press, the arts and the sciences? #679001Participant[quote=CA renter] …Too many people are ignorant about the facts, and they will insist that private corporations are what drive scientific research and create innovative technologies. What so many don’t know is that the majority of basic research is funded by the government. There would be very little innovation if the government wasn’t there to support the often unprofitable basic research that is required to jump-start the more marketable and profitable R&D…..
[/quote]You’ve got them dead to rights on this, CAR. The vast majority of basic science research is being funded by the government, while the private sector sits back and cherry picks the technologies that guarantee profits with no risk. Given the complexity of much of the scientific research these days, caution is understandable. There aren’t too many entities out there that can afford to sink stockholder profits into what can, and does, often turn out to be empty bottomless pits. But science will not advance if no risk is assumed, and it appears that the government alone is willing to take on that risk.
That being said, these same private sector entities need to knock off the John Galt fantasy role-playing and stop laying claim to intellectual property they had no part in producing. And that includes their raping of the public by holding the fruits of taxpayer-funded research for ransom, a tactic in which K-V Pharmaceuticals appears to be engaged.
And while we’re on the topic of government-funded basic research….I really wish politicians and talking heads would STFU when it comes to sounding off on science about which they are totally clueless. The image of Sarah Palin snorting derisively while brimming with outrage over …FRUIT FLY RESEARCH!!!….continues to haunt my nightly periods of N1 sleep. Unfortunately she is not alone in believing herself equipped to make such blanket statements. There’s nothing wrong with a little watchdog activity in an attempt to save taxpayer money. But these boneheaded morons have succeeding in making their mindless followers suspicious of anything relating to science, or academic/intellectual pursuits.
March 21, 2011 at 7:21 AM in reply to: OT – Should the government fund the press, the arts and the sciences? #679605Participant[quote=CA renter] …Too many people are ignorant about the facts, and they will insist that private corporations are what drive scientific research and create innovative technologies. What so many don’t know is that the majority of basic research is funded by the government. There would be very little innovation if the government wasn’t there to support the often unprofitable basic research that is required to jump-start the more marketable and profitable R&D…..
[/quote]You’ve got them dead to rights on this, CAR. The vast majority of basic science research is being funded by the government, while the private sector sits back and cherry picks the technologies that guarantee profits with no risk. Given the complexity of much of the scientific research these days, caution is understandable. There aren’t too many entities out there that can afford to sink stockholder profits into what can, and does, often turn out to be empty bottomless pits. But science will not advance if no risk is assumed, and it appears that the government alone is willing to take on that risk.
That being said, these same private sector entities need to knock off the John Galt fantasy role-playing and stop laying claim to intellectual property they had no part in producing. And that includes their raping of the public by holding the fruits of taxpayer-funded research for ransom, a tactic in which K-V Pharmaceuticals appears to be engaged.
And while we’re on the topic of government-funded basic research….I really wish politicians and talking heads would STFU when it comes to sounding off on science about which they are totally clueless. The image of Sarah Palin snorting derisively while brimming with outrage over …FRUIT FLY RESEARCH!!!….continues to haunt my nightly periods of N1 sleep. Unfortunately she is not alone in believing herself equipped to make such blanket statements. There’s nothing wrong with a little watchdog activity in an attempt to save taxpayer money. But these boneheaded morons have succeeding in making their mindless followers suspicious of anything relating to science, or academic/intellectual pursuits.
March 21, 2011 at 7:21 AM in reply to: OT – Should the government fund the press, the arts and the sciences? #679743Participant[quote=CA renter] …Too many people are ignorant about the facts, and they will insist that private corporations are what drive scientific research and create innovative technologies. What so many don’t know is that the majority of basic research is funded by the government. There would be very little innovation if the government wasn’t there to support the often unprofitable basic research that is required to jump-start the more marketable and profitable R&D…..
[/quote]You’ve got them dead to rights on this, CAR. The vast majority of basic science research is being funded by the government, while the private sector sits back and cherry picks the technologies that guarantee profits with no risk. Given the complexity of much of the scientific research these days, caution is understandable. There aren’t too many entities out there that can afford to sink stockholder profits into what can, and does, often turn out to be empty bottomless pits. But science will not advance if no risk is assumed, and it appears that the government alone is willing to take on that risk.
That being said, these same private sector entities need to knock off the John Galt fantasy role-playing and stop laying claim to intellectual property they had no part in producing. And that includes their raping of the public by holding the fruits of taxpayer-funded research for ransom, a tactic in which K-V Pharmaceuticals appears to be engaged.
And while we’re on the topic of government-funded basic research….I really wish politicians and talking heads would STFU when it comes to sounding off on science about which they are totally clueless. The image of Sarah Palin snorting derisively while brimming with outrage over …FRUIT FLY RESEARCH!!!….continues to haunt my nightly periods of N1 sleep. Unfortunately she is not alone in believing herself equipped to make such blanket statements. There’s nothing wrong with a little watchdog activity in an attempt to save taxpayer money. But these boneheaded morons have succeeding in making their mindless followers suspicious of anything relating to science, or academic/intellectual pursuits.
March 21, 2011 at 7:21 AM in reply to: OT – Should the government fund the press, the arts and the sciences? #680092Participant[quote=CA renter] …Too many people are ignorant about the facts, and they will insist that private corporations are what drive scientific research and create innovative technologies. What so many don’t know is that the majority of basic research is funded by the government. There would be very little innovation if the government wasn’t there to support the often unprofitable basic research that is required to jump-start the more marketable and profitable R&D…..
[/quote]You’ve got them dead to rights on this, CAR. The vast majority of basic science research is being funded by the government, while the private sector sits back and cherry picks the technologies that guarantee profits with no risk. Given the complexity of much of the scientific research these days, caution is understandable. There aren’t too many entities out there that can afford to sink stockholder profits into what can, and does, often turn out to be empty bottomless pits. But science will not advance if no risk is assumed, and it appears that the government alone is willing to take on that risk.
That being said, these same private sector entities need to knock off the John Galt fantasy role-playing and stop laying claim to intellectual property they had no part in producing. And that includes their raping of the public by holding the fruits of taxpayer-funded research for ransom, a tactic in which K-V Pharmaceuticals appears to be engaged.
And while we’re on the topic of government-funded basic research….I really wish politicians and talking heads would STFU when it comes to sounding off on science about which they are totally clueless. The image of Sarah Palin snorting derisively while brimming with outrage over …FRUIT FLY RESEARCH!!!….continues to haunt my nightly periods of N1 sleep. Unfortunately she is not alone in believing herself equipped to make such blanket statements. There’s nothing wrong with a little watchdog activity in an attempt to save taxpayer money. But these boneheaded morons have succeeding in making their mindless followers suspicious of anything relating to science, or academic/intellectual pursuits.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Thanx, I went to the dr yesterday and he prescribed some anti-inflammatory medicine that has made a huge difference. I already regained a ton of flexibility. MRI on Monday. Keeping my fingers crossed its a minor tear.[/quote]
Good luck, sdr. Don’t know if it will make you feel any better, but if you’re destined to screw up your knee in some way, a meniscal tear, in most cases, is the one associated with the least morbidity. There are loads of people walking around, leading very active lives with meniscal tears in one or both knees. I sustained tears in both lateral menisci in my early 20s; the only time they’ve ever caused any significant pain is when I’m bearing weight on a hyperflexed joint, particularly when I’m on my hands and knees (and no comments from the more “traditional” males in the peanut gallery….I don’t scrub my floors often, but when I do, I want to make sure they’re really clean!)
Naturally, there are widely varying degrees of tears. If a tear is located in an area that allows the meniscus to get “caught” between the bones of the joint, it can not only cause significant pain, but serious difficulty with walking (many patients complain of their knee “giving way”). The menisci are often described as “knee cartilage”, but, while meniscal tissue is cartilagenous in its composition, the menisci are actually semilunar-shaped pads that function as shock absorbers. They protect the long bones in the knee joint (femur & tibia) from the shock of repeatedly pounding against each other. So, while they really help in keeping your knee joint comfortable and stable, an injury to them will not prove to be as great an impediment to joint function as damage to the articular cartilage and collateral/ cruciate ligaments would be. That’s why I said that a tear of the meniscus is preferable to just about any other type of knee injury.
The MRI will provide a highly detailed picture and a definitive diagnosis. If there’s a tear, ask the doctor to show you exactly where it’s at. If he/she recommends surgery, ask if there’s a problem with a limited course of conservative treatment (rest & elevation of the limb, antiinflammatories). There are cases where the tear is severe and can impede walking, but that doesn’t sound like you are experiencing that. You may luck out, and have no tear, or a small one that, once the initial inflammation (which is the body’s way of protecting an injured area from risk of further trauma) goes away, will cause you no additional problems.
People respond differently to surgical treatment, and the factors involved are not always controllable. However, the one thing under your control is your choice of surgeon (if you are not restricted to health insurer-designated providers). My recommendation is to find someone who specializes in arthroscopic joint surgery, preferably one who superspecializes in lower extremity pathology. Recovery time and outcome can depend on a variety of factors, among them whether they are simply excising a small portion of the meniscus (usually fairly straightforward), or performing a meniscal repair (can be a lot more detailed). The importance of postoperative physical therapy and rehab cannot be overemphasized. Again, your positive response to the antiinflammatory meds and rest are, hopefully, indicative of a favorable prognosis with the possibility of no surgical intervention.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Thanx, I went to the dr yesterday and he prescribed some anti-inflammatory medicine that has made a huge difference. I already regained a ton of flexibility. MRI on Monday. Keeping my fingers crossed its a minor tear.[/quote]
Good luck, sdr. Don’t know if it will make you feel any better, but if you’re destined to screw up your knee in some way, a meniscal tear, in most cases, is the one associated with the least morbidity. There are loads of people walking around, leading very active lives with meniscal tears in one or both knees. I sustained tears in both lateral menisci in my early 20s; the only time they’ve ever caused any significant pain is when I’m bearing weight on a hyperflexed joint, particularly when I’m on my hands and knees (and no comments from the more “traditional” males in the peanut gallery….I don’t scrub my floors often, but when I do, I want to make sure they’re really clean!)
Naturally, there are widely varying degrees of tears. If a tear is located in an area that allows the meniscus to get “caught” between the bones of the joint, it can not only cause significant pain, but serious difficulty with walking (many patients complain of their knee “giving way”). The menisci are often described as “knee cartilage”, but, while meniscal tissue is cartilagenous in its composition, the menisci are actually semilunar-shaped pads that function as shock absorbers. They protect the long bones in the knee joint (femur & tibia) from the shock of repeatedly pounding against each other. So, while they really help in keeping your knee joint comfortable and stable, an injury to them will not prove to be as great an impediment to joint function as damage to the articular cartilage and collateral/ cruciate ligaments would be. That’s why I said that a tear of the meniscus is preferable to just about any other type of knee injury.
The MRI will provide a highly detailed picture and a definitive diagnosis. If there’s a tear, ask the doctor to show you exactly where it’s at. If he/she recommends surgery, ask if there’s a problem with a limited course of conservative treatment (rest & elevation of the limb, antiinflammatories). There are cases where the tear is severe and can impede walking, but that doesn’t sound like you are experiencing that. You may luck out, and have no tear, or a small one that, once the initial inflammation (which is the body’s way of protecting an injured area from risk of further trauma) goes away, will cause you no additional problems.
People respond differently to surgical treatment, and the factors involved are not always controllable. However, the one thing under your control is your choice of surgeon (if you are not restricted to health insurer-designated providers). My recommendation is to find someone who specializes in arthroscopic joint surgery, preferably one who superspecializes in lower extremity pathology. Recovery time and outcome can depend on a variety of factors, among them whether they are simply excising a small portion of the meniscus (usually fairly straightforward), or performing a meniscal repair (can be a lot more detailed). The importance of postoperative physical therapy and rehab cannot be overemphasized. Again, your positive response to the antiinflammatory meds and rest are, hopefully, indicative of a favorable prognosis with the possibility of no surgical intervention.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Thanx, I went to the dr yesterday and he prescribed some anti-inflammatory medicine that has made a huge difference. I already regained a ton of flexibility. MRI on Monday. Keeping my fingers crossed its a minor tear.[/quote]
Good luck, sdr. Don’t know if it will make you feel any better, but if you’re destined to screw up your knee in some way, a meniscal tear, in most cases, is the one associated with the least morbidity. There are loads of people walking around, leading very active lives with meniscal tears in one or both knees. I sustained tears in both lateral menisci in my early 20s; the only time they’ve ever caused any significant pain is when I’m bearing weight on a hyperflexed joint, particularly when I’m on my hands and knees (and no comments from the more “traditional” males in the peanut gallery….I don’t scrub my floors often, but when I do, I want to make sure they’re really clean!)
Naturally, there are widely varying degrees of tears. If a tear is located in an area that allows the meniscus to get “caught” between the bones of the joint, it can not only cause significant pain, but serious difficulty with walking (many patients complain of their knee “giving way”). The menisci are often described as “knee cartilage”, but, while meniscal tissue is cartilagenous in its composition, the menisci are actually semilunar-shaped pads that function as shock absorbers. They protect the long bones in the knee joint (femur & tibia) from the shock of repeatedly pounding against each other. So, while they really help in keeping your knee joint comfortable and stable, an injury to them will not prove to be as great an impediment to joint function as damage to the articular cartilage and collateral/ cruciate ligaments would be. That’s why I said that a tear of the meniscus is preferable to just about any other type of knee injury.
The MRI will provide a highly detailed picture and a definitive diagnosis. If there’s a tear, ask the doctor to show you exactly where it’s at. If he/she recommends surgery, ask if there’s a problem with a limited course of conservative treatment (rest & elevation of the limb, antiinflammatories). There are cases where the tear is severe and can impede walking, but that doesn’t sound like you are experiencing that. You may luck out, and have no tear, or a small one that, once the initial inflammation (which is the body’s way of protecting an injured area from risk of further trauma) goes away, will cause you no additional problems.
People respond differently to surgical treatment, and the factors involved are not always controllable. However, the one thing under your control is your choice of surgeon (if you are not restricted to health insurer-designated providers). My recommendation is to find someone who specializes in arthroscopic joint surgery, preferably one who superspecializes in lower extremity pathology. Recovery time and outcome can depend on a variety of factors, among them whether they are simply excising a small portion of the meniscus (usually fairly straightforward), or performing a meniscal repair (can be a lot more detailed). The importance of postoperative physical therapy and rehab cannot be overemphasized. Again, your positive response to the antiinflammatory meds and rest are, hopefully, indicative of a favorable prognosis with the possibility of no surgical intervention.
-
AuthorPosts