ARD, CAPPS, Adhesions and Adhesion Related Disorder , Internal Scar Tissue, Hope for those who suffer from Adhesions

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Adhesion Info: Abdominal Adhesions

Adhesion Info: Abdominal Adhesions

Teenager speaks out over medical condition that leaves her looking nine months pregnant every time she eats

Hey, wait a minute! 
RACHEL Harley, 19, had to turn down a place at University in London because of her health after developing a bizarre condition that makes her stomach swell so much after eating that people think she's expecting.
Teenager speaks out over medical condition that leaves her looking nine months pregnant every time she eats

Sunday, December 22, 2013

The inpatient burden of abdominal and gynecological adhesiolysis in the US w Thanks to NIH

BMC Surg. 2011; 11: 13.
Published online 2011 June 9. doi:  10.1186/1471-2482-11-13
PMCID: PMC3141363

The inpatient burden of abdominal and gynecological adhesiolysis in the US


Adhesions are fibrous bands of scar tissue, often result of surgery, that form between internal organs and tissues, joining them together abnormally []. Postoperative adhesions frequently occur following abdominal surgery and are a leading cause of intestinal obstruction. It has been estimated that more than 90% of patients who undergo abdominal operations will develop postoperative adhesions [].
The most severe complication of postoperative adhesions is small bowel obstruction (SBO), which has a 10% risk of mortality [,]. Recent research has demonstrated that readmission episodes averaged 2.7 per patient for SBO or nonspecific abdominal pain (when adhesions were considered likely). Inpatient readmissions accounted for 87% of episodes; 47% of those required repeat surgery []. Additionally, in the large retrospective study Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research, surgical procedures performed on the bowel or the female reproductive system were associated with an increased chance of adhesion development, termed adhesiolysis [-]. Ray and colleagues found that 47% of adhesiolysis-related inpatient hospitalizations were for procedures involving the female reproductive tract []. Postoperative adhesiolysis-related SBO occurred in 2.8% of patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign conditions and in 5% of those undergoing radical hysterectomy [,].
A number of studies have shown that the economic burden of adhesiolysis is significant [,,]. It was estimated that adhesiolysis procedures resulted in 303,836 hospitalizations, 846,415 days of inpatient care, and nearly $1.3 billion in health care expenditures in the United States (US) in 1994 []. This cost has decreased when compared with similar data from 1988,[] due in part to laparoscopic surgery. Despite the decrease in costs associated with laparoscopic surgery, increased use of such techniques did not lead to a decreased rate of overall hospitalizations [].
Utilizing more recent data, we estimated the current burden of inpatient treatment of adhesiolysis in the US. This study examined the number and rate of adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations, days of care attributable to adhesiolysis, and length of stay (LOS) for adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations, with primary and secondary procedures considered separately. Additionally, we assessed total inpatient costs attributable to adhesiolysis.


Data Source

Data were taken from the 2005 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's (HCUP) Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS)[]. The NIS is the largest all-payer inpatient care database in the US and contains data from approximately 8 million hospital stays in 2005. The database also contains clinical and resource use information, including patient demographics, International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis and procedure codes, diagnosis-related group (DRG) codes, LOS, charges, discharge status, payer source, and hospital-specific characteristics. Using the survey design elements provided with the NIS, data can be weighted to produce nationally representative estimates []. All financial information in the NIS database is presented as charges rather than costs. To convert hospital charges to costs, facility-specific cost-to-charge ratios were used. Finally, the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index was applied to inflate all financial data to 2007 US dollars [].
RTI International's Institutional Review Board determined that this study met all criteria for exemption.

Study Sample

From the NIS, all hospitalizations containing a DRG code of peritoneal adhesiolysis with or without complications (i.e., DRG 150, 151) were defined as primary adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations. Hospitalizations containing a primary or nonprimary ICD-9-CM procedure code for adhesiolysis, but without DRG 150 or 151, were defined as secondary adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations (Table (Table1).1). Hospitalizations related to secondary adhesiolysis were stratified by body system, using the following DRG coding:
Table 1
Description of Procedure (ICD-9-CM) Codes Used to Identify Adhesiolysis-Related Surgical Procedures
(1) Digestive system (i.e., DRG 148, 149, 154, or 468),
(2) Hepatobiliary system (i.e., DRG 197, 493, or 494),
(3) Female reproductive system (i.e., DRG 358, 359, 361, or 365),
(4) Pregnancy with evidence of Cesarean section (i.e., DRG 370, 371, or 378).

Study Measures

Study measures included the number of inpatient hospitalizations involving adhesiolysis, adhesiolysis-related hospitalization rates, days of care, and costs attributable to adhesiolysis.
Hospitalization rates per 100,000 persons were assessed using the US Census Bureau's 2005 total US civilian population projection. The total days of care attributable to adhesiolysis were estimated using methods presented by Ray and colleagues that then were adapted for the HCUP NIS []. When DRG 150 or 151 (i.e., primary adhesiolysis) was the primary reason for admission, the attributed LOS was simply the mean LOS for this group. For records without a DRG of 150 or 151, excess days attributed to adhesiolysis were calculated as the difference between the mean LOS for those same procedures with adhesiolysis and those procedures without adhesiolysis within each DRG. The total number of adhesiolysis-related days then was estimated as the product of the attributed LOS for the group and the number of adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations within the group.
This study utilized the methodology from Ray and colleagues to estimate the per-day cost attributable to adhesiolysis []. Cost per day was estimated by dividing the total cost of adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations divided by the total number of adhesiolysis-related inpatient days. The total inpatient expenditures attributable to adhesiolysis were estimated by multiplying the estimated cost per day attributable to adhesiolysis by the number of days attributed to adhesiolysis.
Average expenditures for surgeon's services were estimated using the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS). The RBRVS value was estimated for Current Procedural Terminology codes related to adhesiolysis (Table (Table2)2) and then multiplied by a fixed conversion factor to determine the average surgeon expenditures for each specific procedure. These figures then were inflated to 2007 dollars using the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index.
Table 2
Description of Procedure (CPT) Codes Used to Identify Adhesiolysis-Related Surgical Procedures to Estimate Expenditures for Surgeons' Servicesa
Total inpatient costs attributable to adhesiolysis consisted of inpatient costs and costs for the surgeon's services. Estimates were made separately for primary and secondary adhesiolysis. These also were examined by body system and then aggregated to estimate a total cost. Additionally, inpatient expenditures were summarized to compare Cesarean section deliveries with and without adhesiolysis.

Statistical Analyses

Descriptive analyses were conducted to display the mean, standard deviation, median, and range of continuous variables, as well as the frequency distribution of categorical variables. All data management and analyses were conducted with SAS and SUDAAN statistical software packages [,].

Results and Discussion

Table Table33 illustrates that there were 351,777 adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations in the US in 2005, representing 119 adhesiolysis hospitalizations per 100,000 persons. There were 898 adhesiolysis hospitalizations per 100,000 hospitalizations and 3,549 per 100,000 surgical hospitalizations of any kind (3.5%). Primary adhesiolysis (i.e., DRG 150 or 151) was found in 23.2% of these hospitalizations, while the remaining 76.8% were classified as secondary adhesiolysis (i.e., evidence of the procedure but with a DRG other than 150 or 151).
Table 3
Rate of Adhesiolysis-Related Hospitalizations
Table Table44 presents background characteristics for the study sample. For primary adhesiolysis, the number of hospitalizations increased steadily by age; for secondary adhesiolysis, the number increased for most age categories. The lowest rate was in patients who were younger than 25 years (5.2 per 100,000 persons for primary adhesiolysis; 13.8 per 100,000 persons for secondary adhesiolysis), and the highest rate was in patients who were older than 65 years (88.4 per 100,000 persons for primary adhesiolysis; 176.7 per 100,000 persons for secondary adhesiolysis). Women had a higher hospitalization rate than men (34.9 vs. 19.7 per 100,000 persons for primary adhesiolysis; 153.1 vs. 13.4 per 100,000 persons for secondary adhesiolysis). Among primary adhesiolysis hospitalizations, almost half (48%) of the patients were admitted via the emergency department, whereas only 20.5% of the secondary adhesiolysis hospitalizations were via the emergency department. Primary adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations were evenly distributed between private insurance and governmental coverage, i.e., Medicaid and Medicare (44% and 48%, respectively), whereas more than half (56%) of the patients with secondary adhesiolysis hospitalizations had private insurance and 37.4% had government-sponsored health care coverage.
Table 4
Demographics and Other Patient- and Facility-Specific Characteristics of Interest Among Adhesiolysis-Related Hospitalizations (i.e., DRG 150 or 151) in the US in 2005
A total of 967,332 inpatient days of care were attributed to primary and secondary adhesiolysis (Table (Table5).5). There were 81,532 hospitalizations and an average LOS of 7.8 days per stay, totaling 632,688 inpatient days of care for primary adhesiolysis. An estimated 334,644 days of care were attributed to secondary adhesiolysis. For hospitalizations in which adhesiolysis was a secondary procedure, we compared the LOS between adhesiolysis and nonadhesiolysis procedures to estimate the LOS attributable to adhesiolysis by each DRG. The majority of DRGs showed an increase in LOS for adhesiolysis hospitalizations versus nonadhesiolysis hospitalizations. On average, hospitalizations related to secondary adhesiolysis resulted in an additional 1.24 hospitalized days compared with nonadhesiolysis-related hospitalizations.
Table 5
Inpatient Care Attributable to Abdominal Adhesiolysis by Surgical Procedure in the US in 2005
The difference in mean LOS was greatest for extensive operation room procedures unrelated to principal diagnosis (i.e., DRG 468), with 4.9 days attributable to adhesiolysis. For stomach, esophageal, and duodenal procedures with complications of comorbid conditions (i.e., DRG 154), 4.6 days were attributable to adhesiolysis. Almost half (46.3%) of all secondary adhesiolysis procedures (125,069) were female reproductive tract related, resulting in 57,005 days of care. Thus, 0.46 day of additional stay were attributable to adhesiolysis. The longest LOS for female reproductive system procedures was for DRG 358 (uterine and adnexa procedures for nonmalignancy), which resulted in an additional day of inpatient stay (0.90 day).
Table Table66 shows that total inpatient expenditures for adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations were $2.25 billion: of this amount, primary adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations accounted for $1.35 billion and secondary adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations accounted for $902 million. Of the total secondary adhesiolysis expenditures, $622 million (69%) were related to procedures for the digestive system and $220 million (24.3%) were related to procedures for the female reproductive system. Adhesiolysis related to the hepatobiliary system and pancreas and Cesarean sections accounted for $41 million and $18 million, respectively.
Table 6
Inpatient Expenditures Attributable to Abdominal Adhesiolysis in the US in 2005
The rate of adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations in the US has remained fairly constant from 1998 to 2005: from 115.5 in 1988 [] to 117.3 in 1994 [] and ultimately 118.6 per 100,000 persons in 2005. In these same time periods, the average LOS for primary adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations has steadily decreased from 11.2 days to 9.7 days and 7.8 days, respectively. The costs for such hospitalizations, when inflated to reflect 2007 dollars, indicated an increase of $112 million between 1988 and 2005, despite the 3.4-day (or 30%) decrease in LOS--this represented a 5% increase in medical care costs. This increase suggested that costs of treating adhesiolysis have increased substantially.
Primary adhesiolysis contributed 23% of all adhesiolysis procedures (81,532) but represented more than half of the total cost burden ($1.3 billion). Secondary adhesiolysis was substantially higher in volume, representing 77% of procedures (270,245) but less half of the total cost burden ($902 million). The greatest number of procedures was to the female reproductive tract (125,069) while procedures to the digestive tract yielded the highest overall costs ($622 million).
Potentially mitigating this growth in the cost of adhesiolysis may be the continuing trend in the US toward minimally invasive and laparoscopic approaches, which may lessen the occurrence of postoperative adhesions []. Although laparoscopy reduces surgical trauma, the procedure has not been show to reduce the incidence of adhesion-related readmissions [].
This study is subject to potential limitations consistent with retrospective database studies. Conditions and events of interest were identified by diagnosis codes. Previous research has suggested that the condition may be underreported []. This may mean that the actual cost of adhesiolysis-related disease is greater than the estimate provided by our study. The database used for this study was not specifically designed to assess inpatient burden. Like all administrative billing databases, the data contained in the HCUP NIS are dependent upon the quality of coding, which may be influenced by reimbursement incentives. However, we do not feel it likely that such incentives greatly affected our results since the majority of overall adhesiolysis costs were a part of secondary adhesiolysis procedures and not the more costly primary adhesiolysis. Moreover, even if such incentives exist and are reflected in the data used for this study, these data are indicative of real world practice. Additionally, with such a large sample, the effect of any coding errors or anomalies would likely be minimized.
Furthermore, due to the nature of the database, detailed clinical characteristics could not be ascertained; therefore, the results could not be adjusted for disease severity or other clinical parameters. However, it is unlikely that these factors would have had a large impact on the results, as this study focused on those patients receiving inpatient care. Additionally, since the database contains US data only, the results may not be generalizable to other populations outside of the US. Lastly, because the focus of this study was on direct cost measures, the results do not account for productivity loss for the patient or caregiver and potential future societal contributions that may be lost due to death resulting from or related to adhesiolysis. Because we examined only the direct health care costs associated with inpatient adhesiolysis, we have not examined any adhesiolysis-related surgeries performed at other sites of care, such as ambulatory surgical centers. Further, our study does not capture direct costs relating to but occurring before or after surgery, including pain medications, cost of work-up visits, and procedures related to diagnosis. Similarly, patient work-ups and diagnostic laparoscopic procedures that may have occurred at separate visits and prior to the adhesiolysis surgery were not captured if specific DRG codes were not listed for those hospitalizations [,,]. Hence, this study's estimates of costs are likely to be conservative.


Adhesions remain an important surgical problem, and hospitalization for adhesiolysis leads to a high direct cost burden in the US. Despite a trend of decreasing LOS for adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations from 2001 to 2005, adhesiolysis-related costs continue to rise even while the overall rate of adhesiolysis procedures remains constant. Consistent with previous research, the distribution of inpatient care and costs across the diagnostic categories remained steady from 2001 to 2005, with only a slight increase in primary adhesiolysis procedures over time. From 2001 to 2005, hospitalizations for adhesiolysis related to the digestive system and to the female reproductive tract had the largest number of inpatient days and accounted for the majority of costs related to secondary adhesiolysis procedures.
Adhesiolysis remains a substantial economic burden to the US health care system, which should be of interest to providers and commercial and government payers. Further research incorporating detailed clinical data and indirect costs would aid in a greater understanding of the overall burden of adhesiolysis.

Competing interests

VS was an employee of Ethicon, Inc. at the time that this manuscript was prepared; he is currently an employee of Shire Pharmaceuticals. BB, SDC, and KLD are employees of RTI Health Solutions, the research organization contracted by Ethicon to conduct this study. AJ is an employee of Texas Healthcare; MW is an employee of Christie NHS Foundation Trust.

Authors' contributions

VS was responsible for developing the study design, interpreting the analysis results, and drafting the manuscript text; he is the primary author of this manuscript. BB, SDC, and KLD were responsible for the acquisition, management, interpretation, and analysis of all study data. BB, SDC, and KLD also assisted with developing the study design, interpreting the analysis results, and drafting the manuscript. AJ and MW contributed clinical expertise and guidance and assisted in interpreting the analysis results and drafting the manuscript text.
All authors confirm that they have read the journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this research report is consistent with those guidelines. Finally, all authors have read and approved the final manuscript.


This study and the preparation of this manuscript were funded by Ethicon, Inc. The authors acknowledge that Ethicon, Inc. is the maker of GYNECARE INTERCEED, a product that is marketed to prevent pelvic adhesions.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:


Portions of the study data presented in this paper were previously presented as a podium presentation at the VIIIth PAX Meeting; Clermont-Ferrand, France; September 18-20, 2008, as well as a poster presentation at the 57th Annual Clinical Meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Chicago, Illinois; May 2-6, 2009.
The authors wish to thank Ms. Gail Zona of RTI Health Solutions and Ms. Heidi Waters of Ethicon, Inc., for assistance with preparing this manuscript.


  • Beck DE. Understanding abdominal adhesions. Ostomy Q. 2001;38(2):50–51.
  • Ray NF, Denton WG, Thamer M, Henderson SC, Perry S. Abdominal adhesiolysis: inpatient care and expenditures in the United States in 1994. J Am Coll Surg. 1998;186(1):1–9. doi: 10.1016/S1072-7515(97)00127-0. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Menzies D, Parker M, Hoare R, Knight A. Small bowel obstruction due to postoperative adhesions: treatment patterns and associated costs in 110 hospital admissions. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2001;83:40–46. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • diZerega GS, Tulandi T. Prevention of intra-abdominal adhesions in gynaecological surgery.Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:303–306. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60211-8. [PubMed][Cross Ref]
  • Tingstedt B, Isaksson J, Andersson R. Long-term follow-up and costs analysis following surgery for small bowel obstruction caused by intra-abdominal adhesions. Br J Surg. 2007;94:743–748. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5634. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN, Parker MC, Wilson MS, Menzies D, McGuire A, Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, O'Brien F, Buchan S, Crowe AM. Adhesion-related hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 1999;353:1476–1480. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09337-4. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Parker MC, Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN, Wilson MS, Menzies D, McGuire A, Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, O'Briena F, Buchan S, Crowe AM. Postoperative adhesions: ten-year follow-up of 12,584 patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44:822–829. doi: 10.1007/BF02234701. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, Ellis H, O'Brien F, Buchan S, Crowe AM. The impact of adhesions on hospital readmissions over ten years after 8489 open gynaecological operations: an assessment from the Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research Study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol.2000;107:855–862. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11083.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Meagher AP, Moller C, Hoffmann DC. Non-operative treatment of small bowel obstruction following appendectomy or operation on the ovary or tube. Br J Surg. 1993;80:1310–1311. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800801030. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Ray NF, Larsen JW, Stillman RJ, Jacobs RJ. Economic impact of hospitalizations for lower abdominal adhesiolysis in the United States in 1988. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993;176:271–276.[PubMed]
  • HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)
  • Steiner C, Elixhauser A, Schnaier J. The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project: an overview.Eff Clin Pract. 2002;5(3):143–151. [PubMed]
  • US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index for medical services.
  • SAS Institute Inc. SAS 9.1.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2003.
  • Research Triangle Institute. SUDAAN (Release 9.0.1) Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute; 2005.
  • Gutt CN, Oniu T, Schemmer P, Mehrabi A, Büchler MW. Fewer adhesions induced by laparoscopic surgery? Surg Endosc. 2004;18(6):898–906. doi: 10.1007/s00464-003-9233-3.[PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Parker MC, Wilson MS, Menzies D, Sunderland G, Clark DN, Knight AD, Crowe AM. Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research (SCAR) Group. The SCAR-3 study: 5-year adhesion-related readmission risk following lower abdominal surgical procedures. Colorectal Dis. 2005;7:551–558. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2005.00857.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

Articles from BMC Surgery are provided here courtesy of BioMed Central

Friday, December 13, 2013

Karen Steward in your search for relief from Adhesion's and Adhesion Related Disorder

Have you encountered self proclaimed adhesion activist Karen Steward in your search for relief from Adhesion's and Adhesion Related Disorder?

If you stuck by her side have you found yourself feeling very uncomfortable, scared, humiliated, intimidated, browbeaten, cajoled, exploited, bullied????

Karen’s anger comes from her own agenda of being obsessed with Dr Kruschinski and knowing that harvesting patients and controlling them after surgery is the only way “Kru” will get patients and it is the only way she can stay connected to him! 

If NOT, always validate what is said on any it is YOUR LIFE!

Kruschinski found the most vulnerable patient population to exploit that we can think of and in fitting irony he exploits Karen Steward herself. Yup his very willing cash cow.

The truth of Karen Steward and Dr. Kruschinski lies within the archives of the safe and go look for it.
Others have noticed dreadful, outrageous, intimidating behaviors besides IHRT bloggers. See what they have to say on other websites or forums. Join one of Karen's facebook groups and see for yourself.

IHRT's advice.....Stay away from the chaos of Kruschinski and Steward.
This is not an option. It is dangerous. It is not your only chance. 
Kruschinski has no published credible, bubkus, nada.
Sprayshield is unproven. Most likely as ineffective as Spraygel.

Please do more research and you will find safe, affordable options for you, most likely near you.

If you or a loved one have been effected by this pair of Con's you have a safe place here to speak out with no fear of repercussions. 
You have seen Karen rip adhesion sufferers apart on Facebook....recent post surgical patients who did not fair well under Kruschinski's rusty scalpel are left feeling hopeless and isolated and terrified. You are not alone, it has happened to more folks than on the international patient list. That list that takes the place of actual science and statistics. The list contains the folks who wish to continue to stay on Karen's good side.

Please consider writing your story here where she can't get you. Please consider sparing others your fate.

Just post what you wish anonymously. We promise, the truth will set you free. Your truth will empower you. Don't let Karen take liberties with your life and use you to entice more to her spiders web.

Wishing you all Happy Holidays and we want you to know there is hope and there is help. Consider sharing your gift of truth with other adhesion sufferers.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

A review of the problematic adhesion prophylaxis in gynaecological surgery



Adhesions lead to considerable patient morbidity and are a mounting burden on surgeons and the health care system alike. Although adhesion formation is the most frequent complication in abdominal and pelvic surgery, many surgeons are still not aware of the extent of the problem. To provide the best care for their patients, surgeons should consistently inform themselves of anti-adhesion strategies and include these methods in their daily routine.


Searches were conducted in PubMed and The Cochrane Library to identify relevant literature.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Adhesion Slayer??? Hardly.

You have got to be kidding us. Poor Angela. Did you really make this? Sick with ARD. Desperate to be well. 

We notice Karen also shares copyright.
If this isn't delusional fanaticism, we don't know what is.
Leave a comment if you are horrified.

Sunday, October 06, 2013

Terrifying! This should never have happened. Kruschinski Monster Endogyn

Please show this post to your medical professional. Imagine this poor patient trapped in a plastic surgery clinic in Germany. 8 major abdominal surgeries in a hospital with no ICU. You are so lucky to be alive. Do not even consider this surgeon as an option.
Some of the cases with “Frozen abdomen” are so severe that they present not only adhesions to the abdominal wall and between the bowel loops, but have all organs and bowel loops surrounded by a very dense connective tissue, glueing the organs together and causing constrictions of the bowel.
Those patients need a “Multi-Step-Adhesiolysis” according to the EndoGyn concept and are informed after the first procedure that we will work upon their symptoms in different abdominal quadrants by setting-up a multistep adhesiolysis according to their symptoms.
The first step always includes full adhesiolysis of the abdominal wall as these adhesions are often causing bowel obstructions. Also a partial interluminal adhesiolysis of the bowel loop adhesions is included in the first step.
So in January 2010 the patient was admitted again and we performed the 3rd look procedure on January 18th, 2010, followed by 7 other laparoscopic procedures due to an infection and to avoid reformation of adhesions.
We had to keep the patient for 31 days in the hospital and she had all together 8 surgeries performed.
- 18/01/2010: Gasless Lift-Laparoscopy as 3rd look
– 20/01/2010: 4th look
- 25/01/2010: 5th look
- 27/01/2010: 6th look
- 29/01/2010: 7th look
- 01/02/2010: 8th look
- 05/02/2010: 9th look
- 09/01/2010: 10th look
Please check the text under the images!
Kruschinski touts this proudly on one of his 400 * websites ( check "whois" to see exact amount of Endogyn domains owned). He is mad!

ARDvark Blog Journal of Adhesion Related Disorder: IHRT Presents " Halloween at Endogyn"

ARDvark Blog Journal of Adhesion Related Disorder: IHRT Presents " Halloween at Endogyn"

Monday, July 15, 2013

Kruschinski tries to Reinvent himself again

You are looking at the most delusional person in the world!!!!

"What? Do I LOOK like I am Bankrupt"
Kruschinski's most famous words, just before he filled for insolvency!

Bankruptcy Court Action
Über das Vermögen des Dr. med. Daniel Kruschinski,
Geburtsjahr: 1958,
Falkenhausenweg 54,12249 Berlin
ist am 02.08.2007 um 13.00
Uhr das Insolvenzverfahren eröffnet worden.
Der Schuldner hat einen Antrag auf Restschuld befreiung gestellt.
Verwalter: Rechtsanwältin Vera Mai, Kurfürstendamm 66, 10707 Berlin AZ:
36k IN 2631/07Berlin, 9. August 2007 Amtsgericht Charlottenburg

Translation for your convenience:
Dr. med Daniel Kruschinski, date of birth 1958,
Falkenhausenweg 54, 12249 Berlin 02.08.2007 13.00h
has filed for bankruptcy
The debtor made an application for release from debts
Executor: Attorny Vera Mai, Kurfuerstendamm 66, 10707 Berlin AZ:
36k IN 2631/07Berlin, 9. August 2007Amtsgericht Charlottenburg

Good thing IHRT is re-opening your case!
Lots of people are looking for YOU!
Tons of them in IHRT's stat counter!

"Down Memory Lane"
As only Daniel Kruschinski can take us!

Out of the mouth of Kru.....
**Daniel's words: I get all my"coping" skills from my daddy who was a prisoner in Auschwitz!
** I will have Endogyn Infrastructures all over the world!
** I can go back to the "Emma" any time!

** I am doing clinical studies, surgeries everyday at Zuckerburg, flying off to Thialand and Africa, have a wife, 2 mistress's, 4 kids that I claim and do not pay support to, enough food, beer and booze to keep me happy, and I don't pay taxes either because all of the above is all paid for by the German government to boot! In fact, I never paid taxes now that I think of it!
Below you will find the most delusional person in the world!!!!
** Here are some impressions from the OR at the Klinik am Zuckerberg and some faces for you to get familiar with. Most of them you will see only at the operating or recovery room.
**MORE FACTS about SPRAYGEL to come......
** I am not divorced!
** Those are NOT my two sons! Shirley is a whore!
** I am Jewish!
** I am Catholic!
** Michi is NOT my mistress
** I will give each of my patients your book, Karen!
** We will have more clinical study reports for you on SprayShield!

To date IHRT has proved all these statements from Kru were LIES,
ands many, many more lies as well!

Psycho, Sociopath Kruschinski is on the loose again.....

After hanging out with his father figure

learning all that he can about human experiments.....

"Hey Daddy!"


OH MY GOD! He IS back!

Of course Kruschinski is back, all he has in life is his computer and web site as that is the only way he can feed his perverted ego!
So far the only patient still stroking his ego in the OLD Endoyn message board is "Dandy Sandy!"
(Dandy Sandy actually posts and then answers herself as Kru doesn't!)
Is it a wonder he was bored to death with the old, useless"Endogyn" web site!
Helen Dynda & Karen Stewart, and all the rest of Kru's crew deserted Kru just as we said they would! IHRT right again!

Well, he does have other ways to stroke his ego so why bother with Dandy Sandy!!

Looking through the eyes of a drunk...Yes, this IS how he see's himself in the mirror!

Fat and Bald and Blurry

King Kru aka Daniel Marian Kruschinski is right on track with IHRT's prediction that he would, 100%, absolutely try to re-invent himself into another "Walk - on - Water" surgeon!

King Kru is NOT performing adhesiolysis procedures at Zuckerburg, and he is NOT using the "Abdolift" at Zuckerburg unless he is using it for "cosmetic procedures" as that is all Zuckburg Klinik is license to do there!

A member of IHRT recently toured Klinik Zuckerburg and found it to be nothing but a hotel in which cosmetic procedures are performed by Dr.'s who all have offices elsewhere! People are free to roam the three stories at will, no nurses, no nothing to be exact!

The list of "cosmetic surgeons" sits near the information desk as you enter from the side door, and guess who was NOT on that listing!
Yup...King Kru.

The cosmetic surgeons listed on the information board also had calling cards seen blow on the desk, and what to my wondering eyes does appear? A goofy "Endogyn" that appears to have been a hasty put with the others! This card was poorly written, very unprofessional in appearance,k and the other Dr.s had office address's on theirs cards, but alas Kru only had a cellphone number and web site! Go figure!

All the Dr.'s listed as working in Zuckerburg Klinik were plastic surgeons, but again, only one Dr. offered "internal adhesiolysis procedures" at a facility that doesn't even have a recovery room to monitor it's patients!

Guess who THAT one Dr. is!?

The photo of Zuckerburg that is found in "Endogyn" shows the facade of the klinik at the restaurant entrance off the deck, which faces a very messy unkempt looking miniature golf course and a water fountain that doesn't work!! Nice job, Hutter!
Another wonderful feature of this "klinik" is that it has no elevator for post op patients, and for that matter, one has to wonder if the adhesiolysis procedures Kru claims to do there are performed in one of the hotel rooms as how do you get the ARD patient from the room to the operating /recovery room? The answer is, YOU USE A CHAIRLIFT!

The next issue of wonders is IHRT wonders how Kru is doing gasless adhesiolysis procedures, when he doesn't have an "Abdolift!" Of course, he could have made something similar in the basement of Michi's mothers house where he lives! You know, a "coat hanger type abdolift!"

Every time someone calls Zuckerburg and asks for Kruschinski, the receptionist says that he is "on tour," and tells you to call his cellphone! Oh, whatever!

In this answer IHRT can easily surmise that Doc. Hutter is either in bed with Kru to screw patients out of their money or Hutter will let anyone with a buck advertise on the Zukerburg web site and put calling cards in the Klinik!

By promoting Kruschinski Hutter is hoping that someone will send Kru money and then he would be assured of recouping monies he got taken for by Kru! Maybe Zuckerburg should get rid of that messy golf course and put in a tennis court as Hutter seems to have a nice little "racket" going! Also, the water fountain doesn't work either and looks rather scummy. Perhaps they only used it for promotional photos!

"Hutter and Kru" what a hoot when they are on a toot!

Speaking of hoots, get a load of King Krus

Endogyn web site!

Welcome to EndoGyn®
Endoscopic Gynecology

Enter the world of Dr. Kruschinski

My boy, Danny, was a good boy! Sure, he was into experimenting at a young age, like, on animals, neighborhood children, bums, and the likes of those kinds! But he was trying to do good for humanity! He was good with his hands! He was always trying to put the square peg into a round hole, you know, becuase if he accomplished that he would be the only one in the world to have done it, and then onto greatness!
He sent me a hand written " Mothers Day Card" he is that sweet!

Oh, sure, I tease him with a card now and then. I think they ar are funny, why not? It is good to laugh! I am sure every mother does that!

YOU MADE IT TO THE BIG TIME Kru! Your mother would be proud!
Mobile: 0177. 62.04.621
Tollfree Phone consulting Germany, Every Thursday between 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm