![]() |
Finally have biopsy result...
Fought for skin biopsy and I am in the club. Does .81 mean it is really bad, or just bad?
So, guess it is NOT central sensitization. Trying to not be so sad, but know that now I have to fight for more tests. If it was this hard just to get SFN, it may be too late for any meaningful testing and I have made several doctors mad and three wrong:eek: at the place I am going. I hope to get a NeuroMuscular doctor that will help me before he focuses on his connections with his colleagues. Guess that is a pipe dream too. Thank you for reading. |
.81?
On what scale? Is that included in the report?
Usually, these reports indicate the average number of small fibers found per cubic millimeter of skin as compared to age-matched control norms, and often will indicate the condition of those found. If they found, on average, .81 fibers per cubic millimeter of skin, yes, that is a low number--though lower comparatively at the thigh than at the ankle. |
There should be a lot more information on the report then .81. As Glenn said, you need scale, and condition of fibers.
|
Quote:
Only had that value told to me out of 5.0 by the lab. Can't get the final result for a while due to record release issues. Specimen was from distal leg four inches above ankle. "Skin with significantly reduced epidermal nerve fiber density consistent with SFN." |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by
vB Optimise (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.