excessive breast pain after mammogram

I had a mammogram April 16, 2013 and a day later I suffer with severe pain. I went to several doctors and they couldn't understand it until i find a doctor in Orangeburg and Charleston. she damage my intercostal brachialis nerve. I got nerve blocks and late a nerve stimulator. I have had mammogram before but this one was very painful and will never get another

I'm with you. I'm taking a break. I'm still in pain. I hope and pray you will always be in the best of health.

Yes I had a bad tear left a pool of blood on the machine and dripping down my chest ... never again will I go thru this. Mammogram previously left black and blue marks on my breast’s ENOUGH

I know what you mean, I had exactly the same experience yesterday and I still have a lot of pain. The previous mammograms I had were panful but after some minutes, I was pain free. This one, was so painful and terrible that I won't have another one never again.

Sorry it has been so long to reply. To all women having mammograms. I,'m sure they save lives but mine has ruined my life permanently forever! My pectoral muscle was torn from clavicle and sternum! I have horrible looking breast hanging on me that is flat with no shape. I cannot swallow or breathe normal due to turn muscles and tendons in neck. I am a changed person both physically and mentally. I now have my life!

Suppose to tead, I have no life!

I am interested in type Dr. You saw about the nerve. Woke up next day after mammogram with huge lump across my chest, under collarbone with numbness in thumb and palm. Can't get help!

Sorry this took so long to respond. Did you ever get an answe. I have been damaged for life. Hard getting help. I had most excruciating pain. The machine pressed into my sternum and ribs. Horrible pain and bruising next day. Dr 's kept saying just a deep bruise. 3 days later trouble swallowing and breathing. 2 Dr 'tell me chest wall muscle tears? My problem is my food won't go down but can't get anyone to help. If you got help what type Dr helped?

I had a 3-D mammogram yesterday. This was my third mammogram in my 40’s and first time using 3-D. My boobs immediately felt, and it’s hard to explain, “cooked” after the test. The excessive radiation on my dense breasts was something I could sense afterwards. I have had pain since yesterday, have been taking Advil. It seems to me that exposing healthy women with no symptoms to this unnecessary amounts of radiation and mechanical compression causes way more harm than the benefits which are not supported by scientific studies. I regret listening to my doctor on this, and to the AMA. I will not be getting another mammogram again. If I ever have a concern it will be an ultrasound. I am worried these screenings can make healthy women actually develop cancer which is a huge industry and money maker. Where is the science to document saved lives through mammograms? It just isn’t there. The radiation isn’t worth it if you are healthy with no symptoms.

They don't care, they will cover for them. I did that already.

It's not in your head. Trust your body and do research. I had one today...it hurt like hell and I will never ever have another mammogram. I had breast cancer with resulting mastectomy 30 years ago. I am now 69 and, until today, managed to ignore my doctor's pestering (for 7 years) that I get a mammogram. Now I will go another 7 years w/o a mammogram. They say it is only the amount of radiation you'd get from a chest x-ray. well...that's a lot. It makes no sense to irradiated your breast every year and then NOT expect you to eventually get breast cancer. Surely there are exceptions but, for me, no more. If I have cancer, it'll have to heal itself. I had a mammogram and an ultrasound 30 years ago and, even with a big, tender, palpable lump, they both came back negative. So I walked around another 6 month with this lump getting bigger and bigger. When my doctor went ahead and did a biopsy, he said, for sure, this is cancer. so I went back to the center here in Seattle to get my records...and guess what...they had mysteriously gotten lost! Maybe they smelled a suit down the road. Don't put implicit trust in your doctor...ask, research, and ask again. Use common sense. NOT irradiating sensitive breast tissue makes sense to me. What makes sense to YOU? Make your own decision.

yes, I have always believed also that trauma and anxiety from the test is more likely to CAUSE cancer!

I have actually told my Doctor to place the 'family jewels' there and see how it feels to have them compressed flat' - he just squirmed and closed his eyes just thinking about it. There has got to be a better way - Why after a mammogram do they follow-up with ultra sound and/or MRI?? If they need an MRI for clarity, why not use that FIRST The answer is, they make more money off Mammograms. Just my opinion......

That is why they made the PET scans, to cover you from head to toe. Not just the breast. I know it works. Cancer is attracted to sugar right? The day prior, you have to not have any sugar or starch. Problem was I was not told to watch what I brush my teeth with. I used regular toothpaste and my teeth near the gums turned black. I guess there is some sugar in toothpastes. I had to use a dental metal pick to scrape my teeth back to normal. Why not alternate scans if it works free of torture?

Do some research first before you post about PET scans, because for one they are not suitable for breast screening and they also need to have a radioactive tracer dye injected into the body and that means any mother's would have to avoid kids for at least 12 of more untill the radioactivity has left the body not to mention some of the adverse side effects the radiation can have.
Below is a section from a site where someone has asked the same question and was answered by a qualified PET scan technician.

Q. I've been having PET-CT scans to look for any growth or spread of previously removed tumors. Are they as reliable in detecting breast cancer as a regular mammogram?

A. The short answer is no, PET-CT scans are not suitable substitutes for mammograms. Mammograms take advantage of the fact that most of the female breast is fat tissue, so it's relatively transparent to the low doses of radiation used in mammography. Very subtle changes in tissue architecture are apparent on a mammogram, as are small deposits of calcium that may in some cases signal the growth of a tumor. Today's mammograms can find lesions that are less than 1 centimeter (about half an inch) in diameter.

PET-CT scans do two things. Positron emission tomography (PET) uses glucose that has been tagged with radioactive molecules to identify tissue that's metabolically active. Many tumors have high rates of metabolism, so they tend to "light up" on a PET scan. Like a mammogram, computed tomography (CT) uses radiation, but it takes multiple views of a body part and assembles them into a detailed picture that can show the location and size of a cancerous growth.

PET-CT scans are used to follow some patients with lung cancer and lymphoma, but they're not recommended for screening women who have had breast cancer. Not all breast cancers are "PET avid": many breast cancer tumors have low rates of metabolism, so the PET part of the scan would miss them. In addition, tumors less than 1 centimeter in diameter don't show up very well on a PET-CT scan. Mammography may be the older technology, but it's actually better than PET-CT scans at detecting small cancerous growths.

PET-CT scans can be used to follow patients who have had recurrent breast cancer when the cancer has spread to other organs such as the bone, liver, lungs, or lymph nodes. However, even in these cases, PET-CT imaging isn't as reliable as it is for lung cancer or lymphoma.

Mammography isn't perfect. Even in the best of hands, there are false negatives — cases of breast cancer that the mammogram missed. For that reason, many women who are at high risk of developing breast cancer — such as those with a very strong family history of the disease — are encouraged to get a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan as a screening test. Women who have equivocal findings on a mammogram, or whose mammogram can't be interpreted satisfactorily, may also benefit from MRI evaluation.

MRI imaging of the breast is very sensitive, which is both good and bad. If there's anything suspicious, it clarifies the anatomy with great precision and gives doctors a good idea whether future testing is warranted. But in women with normal breast tissue and no special breast cancer risk, it can lead to many unnecessary biopsies to evaluate the frequent "ditzels": small changes of unclear clinical significance that show up on an MRI scan.

Women with a personal history of breast cancer frequently want to know about tests for early detection of a recurrence. Breast cancer survivors should get annual mammograms, but right now, there's no recommendation that they get PET-CT scans or extra lab tests on a routine basis. Such scans and tests haven't been shown to improve long-term outcomes.