[MSGirl]

Or you could have arthritis in your knee, which can cause temporary swelling of the ankle. My swelling will go down when I do low impact leg exercises in the pool or when I elevate my leg for a time!

[PennBF]

We are not talking about something silly. This is either serious or not serious.
Since no one can give a definitive answer it is time to go to the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville and get an anwer. I remember a Dr.'s advise when my wife had
cancer and mentioned a sympton and what I thought. The Dr's advise was NEVER GUESS. See the Dr and get an answer. Was from a Dr. at Lahey Clinic in Arlington Mass.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by blueash

Why is everyone playing amateur MD here? The OP went to a doctor who outlined options for evaluation and treatment. The OP described it as a sudden new symptom not a chronic problem and further that it self resolved apparently very quickly. And the expected get a new doctor advise when you don't know how good the history and exam were at excluding serious disease. Not every symptom requires thousands of dollars in tests whether invasive or not. A patient is not just a single symptom. A doctor looks at the entire picture and a good one does not order tests that are not going to change the suggested therapy. So watchful waiting was appropriate. Sometimes an MD is better than WebMD.

Everyone is playing amateur M.D. here because the OP reached out to us and knowing that swollen ankles can be serious, we were just trying to help.

Now that I know they are gone, I won't feel concerned. We folks try to look out for each other. AND some people do know a lot of general medicine from being Dr. Mom for a LONG time. We paid attention to the real M.D.s.

[villagetinker]

In light of recent comments, I will modify my previous comments. Please contact your current doctor, if no additional information is forthcoming, get a second opinion. Please do not ignore your symptoms in case this is a symptom for something much more serious. As noted above, there could be many differ causes, some minor, some major, however, no one on this thread can definitively provide you with a diagnosis, this you need to get from a doctor. Good luck, hope everything works out.

[John_W]

Just before your ankles swelled, had you been doing any exercise? In 2003 when I was 53 and hadn't been to a doctor for any medical problem in my life, it was spring time and I had to cut the grass for the first time that year. The next day my ankles swelled up so much I had to loosen my shoe laces to get them on my feet. After about 5 days and my ankles still swollen I looked into finding a doctor.

I went to a rheumatologist and he ran some tests. I had also told him a couple of months earlier in the coldest months of January and February I had developed a rash on my arms and chest. Two different dermatologist couldn't figure out why but when the weather got warmer the rash went away. He did some tests and a week later he said the swollen ankles were caused by the same problem as your rash. You have an over active immune system and since you had been inactive all winter and then just cut the grass your body thought you had injured your ankles. He said a rash is simply the body making too much new skin, cold weather probably made your body think you had injured our skin.

He said they're three brand name drugs that we can choose from to treat the problem, either Enbrel, Humira or Remicade, and basically those drugs will shut down your immune system. That's my experience with this, I can give you more info if this relates to you.

[paulat585]

Originally Posted by hulahips

All of a sudden my ankles are swelling. Dr has no idea? I am not overweight? Any thoughts?

Lots of things could cause it, but mine start swelling greatly when I am anemic.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by blueash

Why is everyone playing amateur MD here?

Because the OP asked for our thoughts. It's a Forum, and chatting about stuff is what we do here.
Hopefully if the OP's concerns escalate, she will have some of the tests offered by her doctor.

[Laurie2]

Originally Posted by Laurie2

Of those 3 choices, the second one finds or eliminates a potential diagnosis rather than just treating symptoms.

The test is a Doppler ultrasound. It is a non-invasive test.

If this symptom is on-going, you need a diagnosis. Others here in this thread have given the reasons.

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

Your screen name makes me think you are a woman, but your behavior is like a man...................denial.

SOMETHING is causing the swelling. The ultrasound can detect Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD) which can sneak up on you and be very serious.

WHY would you decline a non-invasive test?

Carl, that was not denial. My operative words If and on-going were used with the intention of encouraging awareness. And, yes, I am a woman. A relatively nice lady, just trying to help a little.

Originally Posted by blueash

Why is everyone playing amateur MD here? The OP went to a doctor who outlined options for evaluation and treatment. The OP described it as a sudden new symptom not a chronic problem and further that it self resolved apparently very quickly. And the expected get a new doctor advise when you don't know how good the history and exam were at excluding serious disease. Not every symptom requires thousands of dollars in tests whether invasive or not. A patient is not just a single symptom. A doctor looks at the entire picture and a good one does not order tests that are not going to change the suggested therapy. So watchful waiting was appropriate. Sometimes an MD is better than WebMD.

Well, blueash, I understand what you are saying. But. . .

I remember when internet medical information consisted of not much more than anecdotal accounts from individuals and long-outdated abstracts of studies. Things have changed though because now we have sites like Mayo Clinic and others that make information accessible, helping to educate patients so that time with their doctors can be spent efficiently -- if the patient chooses to prepare questions beforehand or to learn more afterward. This is not a bad thing.

I think most of us are well-aware that today's doctors can find themselves weighed down by the demands and constraints of corporate practices and pressures from insurance companies. We grew up knowing doctors who could have stepped right out of a Norman Rockwell painting. (Some of us might even have had a house call.) But those days are long gone. And it is sad for patients -- and for doctors who really want to practice medicine.

I go to appointments as prepared as I can be. Sometimes the appointment is for me. Sometimes I am with someone. I have found doctors to be receptive to my communication. But. . .I never act like a know-it-all.

[hulahips]

My good news is I am glad I went with my gut instinct and refused the meds and tests. Swelling is down and may have just been a food reaction I have always felt each of us knows our own body more than we give ourselves credit for.

[Laurie2]

To Carl in Tampa:

Oh my goodness. I am so embarrassed. Please accept my apology.

When you quoted me in your post #14, I thought you were saying that I was the one in denial. So when I responded to you in post #23, I said that I was not denying the potential seriousness of swollen ankles. (I am so glad my response was at least done in a nice way.)

Later on today I looked back and realized you were just trying to make a point with the OP about the test for blood clots.

I don't know what in the world was the matter with me. Might have been too early in the morning. I might have been reading between the lines instead of just reading the sentence. Or I could be a dingbat. Whatever the reason, I misinterpreted your post, and I am sorry.

I think part of my problem was that I was the one quoted instead of the OP. I now realize you were talking to the OP and not to me. (Note to Self: Everything is not about me.)

(Sometimes the multiquote feature here can be a little aggravating. It took me a try or two to figure out they stack instead of appearing first click to last. For clarification, multiquotes are nice to use, but I understand that it is not always the most immediate thing to do when posting. And sometimes it might need to be a quote within the quote which is impossible to do. So who is being addressed can be confusing.)

So anyway, Carl, when I mess up, I admit it. -- I messed up. I took a little umbrage and I should not have. You were not talkin' to me. I see that now.

And, OP, it is good your ankles are going in the right direction. This once happened to me after a long road trip, making time and distance while eating Fritos and drinking coke. (Not a good plan) Scared the %#@&! outa me. I knew what such a symptom could mean. It was late. I drank water, put my feet up, and the next day got some grapefruit juice and tea and drank enough of it to float a battleship. (Well, not really that much. I tend to be hyperbolic.) It worked, although I had to spend a lot of time that day like that racehorse we have heard about. Then I was fine. -- But had I thought for a minute it could have been a blood clot, I knew enough to know I would have needed a doctor. Fast.

. . .So anyway, again, Carl, I apologize. Now, I have figured out what you meant.

Laurie (who has nice manners mostly, but can sometimes miss the obvious)

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by Laurie2

To Carl in Tampa:

Oh my goodness. I am so embarrassed. Please accept my apology.

When you quoted me in your post #14, I thought you were saying that I was the one in denial. So when I responded to you in post #23, I said that I was not denying the potential seriousness of swollen ankles. (I am so glad my response was at least done in a nice way.)

Later on today I looked back and realized you were just trying to make a point with the OP about the test for blood clots.

I don't know what in the world was the matter with me. Might have been too early in the morning. I might have been reading between the lines instead of just reading the sentence. Or I could be a dingbat. Whatever the reason, I misinterpreted your post, and I am sorry.

I think part of my problem was that I was the one quoted instead of the OP. I now realize you were talking to the OP and not to me. (Note to Self: Everything is not about me.)

(Sometimes the multiquote feature here can be a little aggravating. It took me a try or two to figure out they stack instead of appearing first click to last. For clarification, multiquotes are nice to use, but I understand that it is not always the most immediate thing to do when posting. And sometimes it might need to be a quote within the quote which is impossible to do. So who is being addressed can be confusing.)

So anyway, Carl, when I mess up, I admit it. -- I messed up. I took a little umbrage and I should not have. You were not talkin' to me. I see that now.

And, OP, it is good your ankles are going in the right direction. This once happened to me after a long road trip, making time and distance while eating Fritos and drinking coke. (Not a good plan) Scared the %#@&! outa me. I knew what such a symptom could mean. It was late. I drank water, put my feet up, and the next day got some grapefruit juice and tea and drank enough of it to float a battleship. (Well, not really that much. I tend to be hyperbolic.) It worked, although I had to spend a lot of time that day like that racehorse we have heard about. Then I was fine. -- But had I thought for a minute it could have been a blood clot, I knew enough to know I would have needed a doctor. Fast.

. . .So anyway, again, Carl, I apologize. Now, I have figured out what you meant.

Laurie (who has nice manners mostly, but can sometimes miss the obvious)

No problem and no need for an apology. I was, of course, supporting your view. I could have made it clearer that I was addressing the OP.

It is difficult to offend me as long as there is no name calling involved. I was in the military in the 1960s when we had to endure Flower Children marches and race riots. I spent almost 40 years in law enforcement, and developed a very high tolerance to criticism.

I continue to believe that the OP should have the test that could detect PAD.

Oh well....................

[Jerseygirl08]

Originally Posted by hulahips

Tks for great tips. I do watch my salt am pretty much a health enthusiast. my Dr gave me 3 choices. I turned down all 3. First she said I could go on the med (forget name) that pretty much keeps u in the bathroom all the time. No 2 get test for blood clot or no 3 wear compression hose. Said no to all and today ankles are better. Will keep an eye on them though. Maybe just one dish I had was loaded with salt I am thinking

Hula - Good that you said NO to all three pieces of advice. Lasix makes you pee like a race horse, but won't solve your problem. If you had a blood clot, or the doctor suspected you did, a good doctor wouldn't give you much of a choice to have the ultrasound. A blood clot could kill you. And the third option, wear compression hose, is good advice for someone with circulation problems. Time to get a new doctor, one that will identify the problem before giving you choices like this. GEEZ!

[hulahips]

Tks jersey girl. I concur. I did make the right decision for me and am doing great