I don't know if I've mentioned it here, probably not because it is not on my mind much, but the Critter Girl has a birthmark on her back. It is about dime-nickel sized, a cafe au lait mark with 3 small freckles inside it. It has not changed since she was born, which I know because every time she has a bath, I check it and say, "Looks the same!"
Her pediatrician sent us to see a pediatric dermatologist 6 months ago, because I guess there can be a higher rate of malignancy in these kind of birthmarks. Maybe. So the derm she said she wanted to see us in 6 months to re-evaluate. Which happened this week.
The Critter (who now weighs in at 17 lbs 3 oz!!) was all smiles for everyone, so charming that girl. The derm looked at the mark, and said she really didn't think it was the kind that will become cancerous, but for cosmetic reasons she recommended we remove it. She said that it will likely grow with the Critter, so it will be in the same proportion on her back as it is now, as opposed to staying its current size as her back gets bigger. She said it will likely get more freckles, and could become "velvety" and possibly sprout hairs. She said it is best to do this kind of surgery between 6-12 months, when the babies are still somewhat immobile and their skin is very pliable and heals well. It would be done under general anesthesia, although she would not be intubated, it sounds more like the twilight sedation, like in an egg retrieval.
She left it up to us to make the decision of removal or not. She, of course, wanted us to do it.
I should also note that I have a birthmark, a prominent one. I have a port wine stain on my forehead, above my right eye, into my hairline. There was no treatment for post wine stains when I was growing up, so my mom kept me in bangs my entire childhood, but also told me it was no big deal. Which I still fully believe to this day. I don't wear bangs anymore, and frequently wear my hair back in a tight ponytail, birthtmark in plain sight. I honestly forget it is there most of the time. Sure, I could have it lasered off now, but my response to that is "Why?" I sort of like it, it makes me me.
The day after the derm appointment, Mr. P and I talked about what to do. We are both leaning towards not removing the Critter's mark. We are both scared to put her under sedation of general anesthesia for basically a cosmetic procedure. And as Mr. P said, "We can raise her to be a confident girl, and let her make her own decision about it when she gets older." I agreed. But kids can be cruel, and I don't want her being teased or feeling bad about something we could have removed.
Do you think we made the right choice? What say you, oh wise interwebbies?
Repeat: Cold Peace
1 day ago
We're sort of in the same situation although A's birthmark is very large and on her scalp (thus difficult to remove later in life and harder to monitor for changes as she gets older). I would lean towards removal, just because she won't remember a thing and surgery later could be traumatic/painful. However, I totally get that you don't want to make a cosmetic decision for her.
ReplyDeleteI assume the procedure would be done at our local Children's hospital...right? If so, A already went under the same kind of anesthesia for an MRI to check that the birthmark cells didn't go deeper than her skin (they don't, thank God). It really wasn't bad at all and the doctors there were great. Plus, according to our Dermotologist and Pediatrician, the risks for that kind of anesthesia are extremely low.
Email me if you have questions abt our experience thus far.
My general policy is also not to remove things from my kid for cosmetic reasons before they are old enough to WANT them removed... because they can always remove later, but can't be added back!
ReplyDeleteMy son also has a dime-sized birthmark on his back, smack in the center, and I find it super-charming and adorable and a part of what makes him him. Honestly, it's not like that many people see your back all the time... and that's even more true for a little girl than a little boy, since the point at which kids start being cruel about teasing also coincides with an age where shirts are required for girls. I think it's location makes it rather like your having bangs over your birthmark as a child, only probably more so.
I think the cosmetic surgery will always be there for your daughter if she wants it... and in the meantime, you can just observe it to make sure it doesn't show any sudden changes, just like you do with any mole. We joke that our son's birthmark is located in such a way that it would make an awesome center piece for a tattoo someday if he is thus inclined.
My son also was born with a mole on one hand and it's one of his favorite things, because one hand has a mole there and the other does not, and no one else's hand does either!
I was born cross-eyed and had surgery to coorect it enough to make it less noticable when I was 2. The surgery didn't help my vision just made me look less funny. Today there is a series of physical therapy sessions that they do today for kids like me. The therapy makes them look normal and see normal.
ReplyDeleteI guess my point is the it might be pretty easy for Critter to have something done about it later as med technology advances. So if it doesn't bother anyone now, maybe leave it. But I might suggest thinking that you maybe help her do something about it as a teenager rather than making her wait until she's an adult, if it really bothers her. when she hits that age.
Oh, that's a hard one! You don't want Critter Girl to go under any unnecessary procedures. My brother has an adorable birthmark that he passed on to my nephews. I'm a little jealous I didn't get one. :)
ReplyDeleteHowever, I work in oncology treatment. The doctor I work for that I love and respect the most, his mantra is always, "Never Bet Against Cancer." Meaning, cancer always wins in the end. I know Critter's doc said she doesn't think it will become cancerous, but if it was Davie, being in the field I am in, I would remove it. But I could just be projecting my own fears, so take that with a grain of salt.
i think you've made the right choice. louise has a birthmark on her leg, bigger than critter's (but not huge). the doctor says it's nothing to worry about, but my husband's other daughter had to have one removed as a baby, hopefully it doesn't escalate to that point.
ReplyDeleteI highly recommend asking for a referral to a pediatric neurosurgeon and insist on an MRI - the ONLY way to see if there's an issue underneath. Both my kids were born w/ birthmarks on their backs; one was fine, but the other one's spinal cord was attached by a lipoma (like a skin tag, but on the inside) - issue b/c as the child grows, the spinal cord can't move freely, and the pediatric neurosurgeon warned me that any neurological damage that occurred would be irreversible. I did a lot of research on dire potential consequences (e.g., chronic pain, paralysis, loss of bladder/bowel control, etc.), then opted for surgery at less than a year of age - not to remove the birthmark - but to detach the cord.
ReplyDeleteHad I listened to the nurse when I gave birth or to the pediatrician, I would have just put it down to a cosmetic birthmark rather than an indicator of something more under the surface. Hopefully, your daughter doesn't have an attached spinal cord, but why not investigate and be sure?