Melissa's exhibitionism

[MelissP]

Welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends ...

When I got my MRI back on May 3'rd, I promised everyone here I would show you what my scans revealed. Ok, so there were some technical problems, for a while I couldn't figure out how to convert dicom files. But now- You gotta see the show ...

But first a speech // When I stayed awake for my colonoscopy on 1/22/04,
I didn't know where the gi doc had really been planning to send the camera, and I never realized what kind of ego demolishing shit I'd be in afterwards, from all sides especially the doctors. Being called a liar, a kook, having my legitimate health concerns shrugged off and dismissed, even by those who I thought were friends. This does not help someone with an all too fragile sense of self-esteem (no one's ever seen my picture online ...) It's been a hard time.

I'm not going to claim these shots are of a normal female pelvis, though they definately aren't from a normal male pelvis either. I never wanted to make those claims. All I ever asked for was a logical explanation, except I was stonewalled.
So with no further delays, two sets of shots, each picture represents a sequential vertical slice of my pelvis up to about my navel, side view.
The second sequence of 3 was done at a higher power setting for better resolution, but detects areas of mucus as solid objects.

Using a base URL of
(URL removed 8/26/05 at Melissa's request.)
You may access the following files
189.gif
190.gif
191.gif
192.gif
215.gif
216.gif
217.gif

These will be available at least until saturday morning, when I check with my isp to see how much of my bandwidth quota remains. After that, I may or may not have to take them down. Please download and save them instead of viewing them multiple times. Thank you.

Let the world be my judge, and if I'm just a fool, I'll leave here censured.
Melissa

[MelissP]

It's too late to edit my first post, so a reply to myself.
For anyone who got bad links, in order to avoid search engines locking on to me, the 7 urls were split.

I've put 7 whole links on my extremely failed attempt of a web page in progress. You can tell I'm not a web designer. My brother is, but he won't help me.

It is at
(URL removed 8/26/05 at Melissa's request.)

sorry for the inconvenience.

[neko2]

Hi Melissa

Your MRI looks basically the same as mine, except for some reason they did my sagittal scans T1W so my bladder appears black instead of white.

Since one doctor said you had a uterus, did he point out where in the image it was? Because I don't see it in either yours or mine, and I'd sure like to know where my bleeding is coming from. After I had the MRI, the doctors office called and left a message saying they found nothing. Yeah, real helpful. :(

[MelissP]

Hi Melissa

Your MRI looks basically the same as mine, except for some reason they did my sagittal scans T1W so my bladder appears black instead of white.

Since one doctor said you had a uterus, did he point out where in the image it was? Because I don't see it in either yours or mine, and I'd sure like to know where my bleeding is coming from. After I had the MRI, the doctors office called and left a message saying they found nothing. Yeah, real helpful. :(

That sounds like a reasonable question.

When I do imaging work, I set my screen down to 640x480x32bpp, then I magnify if necessary. The matrox g400 I use can handle much much better, but usually my eyes can't.
For viewing these I used corel photopaint, though deneba canvas shows things identically. I promise I did not alter the images other than adjusting for brightness and contrast.

In image 217: The uterus being referred to is apparently in the region between pixels (275,265) - (325,325), translucent texture possibly being caused by the scan's settings making mucus appear lightened. Hypothetical ovary at (247,250) - (275,275). Apparent tubule connecting the two.

In image 216: {uterus} (285,265) - (320,320) {ovary} (240,240) - (275,275)
{tubule} less easily visible

In image 215: {uterus} (280,265) - (320,290)

My analytical opinion: While these don't resemble a normal sized and postioned uterus/ovarys, the radiology report did say "small", so this may be plausible. Careful examination of the area around the {uterus} showed it being surrounded by a larger region of muscle, which was extremely translucent in the scan. Either way, while it would explain the bleeding, I was never quite so concerned with that. I've either got it or I don't, no great use in argument. However, the mystery canal which I experienced during my colonscopy is quite obviously there, as I witnessed, also covered in the mucus which I often feel dripping and sloshing in there.

For a note as to the scale of the pictures, from the center of the {uterus} to the bottom of the canal runs approximately 4.5 inches according to the mri viewing software. From my navel down to the same baseline is 8 inches. The tops of my hip bones are at the same level as my navel.

Thanks. I know very little about you. Compare notes sometime?

[neko2]

About me, well I have pretty much the same problem as you, no vagina but I get my period.

Anyway, I had an MRI, they gave me films and a CDR. When I tried converting the DICOM files with ImageMagick it crashed (indefinite hang). Same thing happened with GIMP. So I can only view the films.

I don't know what to make of the images you posted. That does not look like a normal uterus or ovary compared to this reference image: http://mripractice.tripod.com/mrpractice/id67.html

If that's a uterus, it is very small. On my MRI there is a small structure in approximately the same location, but it's even smaller than yours. I really don't know how you'd differentiate it from intestines or part of the wolffian duct.

[MelissP]

About me, well I have pretty much the same problem as you, no vagina but I get my period.

Anyway, I had an MRI, they gave me films and a CDR. When I tried converting the DICOM files with ImageMagick it crashed (indefinite hang). Same thing happened with GIMP. So I can only view the films.

I don't know what to make of the images you posted. That does not look like a normal uterus or ovary compared to this reference image: http://mripractice.tripod.com/mrpractice/id67.html

If that's a uterus, it is very small. On my MRI there is a small structure in approximately the same location, but it's even smaller than yours. I really don't know how you'd differentiate it from intestines or part of the wolffian duct.

Hi Neko :wavey:
In the end, I had to use windows for the image conversions. I know I know "windows? what a new low to hit ..." So anyways, I installed winnt4 w/ sp6 unto a spare harddrive. The included software "ali diskview" worked, and then I found a freeware dicom convertor called "ezdicom" which also included source code.

From examining both sets of images, it looks pretty clear Dr Hadley was right about my having most of a vagina. It's just the {no exit} part that sucks. The {thing} seen in both our cases does turn out to be hollow and connected to the canal. Maybe with the right long-term hormonal push, it might be persueded to grow a little.

I think the films aren't very effective. You really need to adjust contrast and brightness to see much of anything.

The bleeding sucks bad, and in the week since my last I've had nothing but 24/7 cramps (this time).

[MelissP]

Hi again Neko,
I went back to the alidiskview software to get a measurement of the possible uterus. In 216, it's 24mm from left to right. In 217, 33mm. I looked at the page you mentioned. From the pics I've imported, it's hard to judge length, which is the dimension they were using to describe normal. So it's difficult to how much it is of the structure being undersized, and how much because the rest of me isn't very petite.

[neko2]

The problem seems to be that the DICOM images are JPEG 2000 lossless. I can't find anything to view them with. I ended up just taking a photo of the films.

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1889/mri3ld.gif

I don't really have an accurate way of measuring things in this image, but that structure can't be more than about an inch long. For the amount of trouble it has caused me, I was expecting something bigger.

Now I just need to get my doctor to tell me what he thinks that thing is...

[MelissP]

The problem seems to be that the DICOM images are JPEG 2000 lossless. I can't find anything to view them with. I ended up just taking a photo of the films.

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/1889/mri3ld.gif

I don't really have an accurate way of measuring things in this image, but that structure can't be more than about an inch long. For the amount of trouble it has caused me, I was expecting something bigger.

Now I just need to get my doctor to tell me what he thinks that thing is...

My mri was in lossless jpeg too. Ezdicom converted it ok. If you can't put up a suitable windows install, it did come with source code which you might be able to adapt. It's hard to compare mri's. You said yours were all shot at t1. Some of my mri was at t1, for those there doesn't seem to be much I can do for bringing out details. All it shows is outlines of surfaces. My sag shots were all taken at t2. The difference between the small and large shots was that the small ones are "GRE" and the large ones are "frFSE fs". Maybe that's why it seems to penetrate better. Good luck with with your doctor. It looks like you have a very large bladder :confused6

Oh, also, if you were able to access the dicom files, they probably show a lot more detail. As I've read it, mri's go straight into image files in the first place, and the films are just something they print up afterwards. That makes sense, because after I got done with my scan, the doctor in charge was just holding something that looked sort of like a Jaz drive cartridge, and sending that to the radiology lab for processing.

[neko2]

It looks like you have a very large bladder :confused6
LOL. I had to pee. I had been waiting for over an hour and my bladder got full. :)

I'll try ezdicom when I have some time. The source code is in pascal, haven't tried compiling that. Anyway, in that image you can see the dark gray area directly to the right of my bladder, which I assume is my uterus. It's obviously not part of my rectum, and there isn't any other anatomical structure that would normally be in that location.