Been there, doing that.

It doesn’t sound like ‘less invasive’ surgery to me. Just invasive in some place that doesn’t show. *grimace*

The one thing I can tell you for 100% is: never, ever be one of a surgeon’s first 20 or 30 when she’s learning a new minimally-invasive procedure. Lap choles taught us that. No one wants to be on the sharp end of the learning curve.

Oh, for sure. I wouldn’t buy an iPod until they’d been around long enough to have the bugs out. I definitely don’t want to be a medical guinea pig.

The one thing I can tell you for 100% is: never, ever be one of a surgeon’s first 20 or 30 when she’s learning a new minimally-invasive procedure. Lap choles taught us that. No one wants to be on the sharp end of the learning curve.

I was about to say, “If I were ever in that situation, I’d obviously do more research,” but duh… When you’ve got appendicitis, you don’t have time to research. So I guess I’d better do it in advance.

Still, although I totally agree with the “heap more data” point (obviously, this procedure is brand new), I also think… well, is it possible to be optimistically skeptical? ‘Cause that’s sort of how I feel about it.

In the meantime, I’m just going to really hope I don’t need my appendix or gallbladder out in any case.

I don’t know – we need a heap more data before this technique is embraced. Vaginal tubal ligations were quite popular for a while, on the data-free assumption that they were super duper safe – but they weren’t. Around double the risk of complications – haemorrhage, infections and pelvic abscesses. And a higher failure rate to boot – 2-4% or more. There was also a chance of painful penetrative sex after the procedure, which can last for months. Vaginal tubal ligation has been abandoned in areas where laparoscopy is available.