One needs to be very careful with such surgery so I’d pay the $2000 more.

I think a device would be a more accurate way to measure this, and I would have more confidence in it. I would hope that some or all of the cost would be covered by my insurance.

I would be confident in the ability of the treating physician and his/her team to accurately and safely assess the blood flow. If my insurance paid for the daily fee, I'd be cool with it. But not out of pocket.

$2000 is a lot of money for a single test. I would need more information about agreement between clinical judgment and test results in order to make this decision. My initial inclination, however, is not to do the ultrasonic test.

I have no clue, I hope I never have to decide.

I would prefer paying the extra 2000 because it seems like it would help me more, and it would give me a better chance.

$200 per day is a lot, I'm fine with the direct blood flow.

I do not have the extra funds to accommodate that extra money so I would have to decline that. I would just hope that they did their job right.

I'd want a surgeon to access. Paying $2000 is a lot of money for something I may or may not need.

The ultrasonic device could detect problems much faster than any human.

I guess I would want to pay more so the surgeon has the most accurate information and can make the best decision for my body during the surgery

Visually! 2000 is a lot of money!

If my insurance covered it or if I could afford it, absolutely pay for the Ultrasonic. I am so grateful for being able bodied. I want to keep it that way.

There are two questions on this page, and though they are similar in terms of their main topic, they differ on key details, and it is not clear which one I am supposed to answer. The one at the top, in bolder text, is asking about a surgeon's visual assessment vs. a machine that I would presumably be purchasing and monitoring on my own. In this scenario, as long as I was informed about the symptoms and warning signs of poor blood flow, then I would be able to trust the surgeon's assessment unless, and until, I felt any reason to worry that I might be experiencing a problem. At that point, I would prefer to seek a second opinion rather than trying to take matters into my own hands, even with professional equipment. If the relevant question was instead whether I would rely on a nurse's assessment vs. a $200 per-day charge for the device, then I would still rely on the nurse, as long as I knew what warning signs to look out for, and if I had any symptoms, then I would either take it to a doctor or consider more active monitoring.

It all depends on how good this surgeon is. If they are surgeon and they’re in charge of doing this operation and looking after me, then they should be able to do this without the machine.

I would pay 2000 to have the device do it. I feel like humans make more errors than these machines today

If I was already paying to have a medical procedure to improve the bloodflow of my limb, I would put in the extra money to verify by more than just a subjective observance of the surgeon who has every reason to want a positive outcome to occur. I would want that evaluation to be done by a separate provider, however.

I would want them to do it with a device but $200 per day and $2000 is a difference. I can do one but not the other.

I'm not sure how necessary the ultrasonic device is in this case, but am also not very familiar with the problem or procedure here. I'd hope for insurance to cover more of this expense.

$2000 Dollars out of pocket would be hard to get a hold of, and I would definitely want to research the topic more or get a second opinion if possible before committing.

I would be willing to pay the extra money because I think it would be better for me health-wise in the long run.

I would rather pay more for the montoring as I think this is very important to monitor correctly.

I would prefer to pay the $2000 to have a more accurate reading. I don't want to gamble with my health.

I would rather have an ultrasonic device to make sure that there are no problems.

If I had the $2000, I'd want the ultrasound.

I would pay the extra $2000 for extra safety and piece of mind.

I would rather pay the $2000 as a backup to the visual exam. It is too important to go cheap on this. I want to pay as much as I can for the best healthcare especially in regards to my legs and my mobility.

I would choose to pay for the Ultrasonic device to monitor blood flow because it provides more accurate and reliable information than just visual checks, especially after a serious surgery.

Since I don't have much budget, I prefer surgeon to visually check but to confirm I might pay $200 for only one day.

I would choose the surgeon unless the Ultrasonic device was covered by insurance.

I would rather have the high tech device do the monitoring so it is more accurate and no mistakes

I would rather have the doctor unlessthere was a major reason why the other option was better.

200 dollars per day to monitor blood flow is something that I would pay if I could afford it. It seems that it would be best for my health overall and I would want to have my blood flow actively monitored. Unfortunately, I cannot afford such a procedure so at this time I would not opt into this

Yes, I would like to have a doctor who assesses the blood flow at the time of surgery. But I wouldn't want to pay $2000 as it is very expensive.

If I were undergoing a revascularization of a leg, in my opinion, I would like a surgeon to visually assess the blood flow because I trust the surgeon, he has studied his specialty for at least 7 years so ho knows well what he does.

I am not interested in saying anything about this question.

A lot of this is unknown to me in terms of the how the surgery works - I hate to spend that much more money since we know surgery is already ridiculously overpriced...but when you are talking about blood flow (which is kind of critical), I think I'd have more peace of mind if there was a device to monitor and measure. It seems safer. So I'd spring for it (assuming I could).

I would feel safer to pay an additional amount for an Ultrasonic device to actively monitor blood flow round the clock as a nurse or any medical staff may not be able to monitor it continuously round the clock and may miss in between which can be risky.

Since I do not have a ton of medical knowledge, I would go with whichever option is more recommended. I would much rather play it safe and not risk any health issues, than save a little bit of time and money.

I would want to have the device do it. Men are falliable and machines make me feel more comfortable with something like this. The risk of complications if this where to fail would be really bad. I would rather pay the money and have more peace of mind.

I would rather my insurance py the additional 200 bucks and have both. I already distrust most doctors because they rush through things. I'd rather have a machine second check him or her.

I would prefer ultrasonic device because it offers more precise and detailed measurements

I would pay the extra money just to be on the safe side.

I would go with whatever choice is cheaper which I would assume would be the visually assessing blood flow.

I would pay the extra money for the device to moniter the blood flow. Makes sense to have the best care possible.

I would probably pay and have a device see more than the naked eye could

I would definitely pay to avoid longer surgery and complications, would rather it would be cheaper

I would pay the extra to have it monitored which would make sure that it is working properly.

I rather have the surgeon assess the blood flow visually. I feel more assure plus I do not want to spend the extra money.

2000 seems like a lot of money for that kind of visual