Prostate Biopsy
- Thread starter MisterVIP
- Start date
The camera probe would've been through my penis.
For the biopsy, there was a camera put in the other end anyway.
Six of one, half-dozen of the other...
I'm getting occasional pain in the area, sort of a pinching pressure.
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Posts
- 10,638
- Media
- 4
- Likes
- 45,894
- Points
- 693
- Location
- New York (United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I must have missed this thread back when you posted it. I am getting to the age where I should start getting these things checked out.
Thanks for the posting
Thanks for the posting
Update:
I liked my doctor, but I wasn't allowed to keep my doctor and was forced to change providers, which also made me lose the affiliated urologist too.
Because of that change, 2016 was the first year I didn't have a full and proper annual physical exam, the new doc just ordered labs and reviewed them with me. She was really nice (very pretty too, which was also nice) but seemed a very hands-off kind of doc, but she did spend lots of time talking and Q&A. In the year and some months she's been my doc, she didn't physically examine me. Now she's moving, so they gave me some new guy straight out of school. I told him I was instructed after my biopsy and BPH diagnosis in 2014 that I require prostate exams annually, and I haven't had one since my biopsy, so he wrote a referral to urology because he said that's who should do it properly.
So, I just saw the urologist today. He examined me, front and back. Testicular exam was a bit painful, he squeezed them a bit hard, but said nothing seemed unusual. Hernia checks were okay too. Then he commented that I must have had phimosis at some point. I told him I've never ever had any sort of phimosis. He didn't even try to retract my foreskin completely anyway, so that was kind of an odd comment. This was only the second doctor I've ever had in my life examine my penis without fully retracting my foreskin. He retracted only enough to expose the meatus and immediate surrounding area, and what was exposed was a bit glossy from coconut oil. Maybe he thought I was using oil because of phimosis? I don't know...
He said hydroceles were barely noticeable and that he could barely feel them. I asked if he thinks they are anything to be concerned about and he said no. I asked about surgery anyway. He said that drainage procedures are ineffective and the best thing is removal when necessary to intervene, but that I should leave mine alone since they are invisible to the eye and aren't causing any real trouble.
Prostate check was uncomfortable but fairly quick, and I guess as a result, less uncomfortable than the prior checks. It didn't actually seem as thorough as the ones I've had before, definitely not nearly as long as they took, but doc seemed confident in his observations.
He noted the BPH but didn't say he felt any unusual lumps as was found in 2014. I'm still not really complaining about any urinary issues, however he prescribed a low dose of Cialis for BPH anyway and to follow up in 3 months for another physical exam.
I liked my doctor, but I wasn't allowed to keep my doctor and was forced to change providers, which also made me lose the affiliated urologist too.
Because of that change, 2016 was the first year I didn't have a full and proper annual physical exam, the new doc just ordered labs and reviewed them with me. She was really nice (very pretty too, which was also nice) but seemed a very hands-off kind of doc, but she did spend lots of time talking and Q&A. In the year and some months she's been my doc, she didn't physically examine me. Now she's moving, so they gave me some new guy straight out of school. I told him I was instructed after my biopsy and BPH diagnosis in 2014 that I require prostate exams annually, and I haven't had one since my biopsy, so he wrote a referral to urology because he said that's who should do it properly.
So, I just saw the urologist today. He examined me, front and back. Testicular exam was a bit painful, he squeezed them a bit hard, but said nothing seemed unusual. Hernia checks were okay too. Then he commented that I must have had phimosis at some point. I told him I've never ever had any sort of phimosis. He didn't even try to retract my foreskin completely anyway, so that was kind of an odd comment. This was only the second doctor I've ever had in my life examine my penis without fully retracting my foreskin. He retracted only enough to expose the meatus and immediate surrounding area, and what was exposed was a bit glossy from coconut oil. Maybe he thought I was using oil because of phimosis? I don't know...
He said hydroceles were barely noticeable and that he could barely feel them. I asked if he thinks they are anything to be concerned about and he said no. I asked about surgery anyway. He said that drainage procedures are ineffective and the best thing is removal when necessary to intervene, but that I should leave mine alone since they are invisible to the eye and aren't causing any real trouble.
Prostate check was uncomfortable but fairly quick, and I guess as a result, less uncomfortable than the prior checks. It didn't actually seem as thorough as the ones I've had before, definitely not nearly as long as they took, but doc seemed confident in his observations.
He noted the BPH but didn't say he felt any unusual lumps as was found in 2014. I'm still not really complaining about any urinary issues, however he prescribed a low dose of Cialis for BPH anyway and to follow up in 3 months for another physical exam.
