Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 For me, an adult, I'm glad I went through the colonoscopy and endoscopy with biopsies in both directions, because it revealed useful info. The blood test is what convinced me, though. The biopsies (top down and bottom up) revealed info that I needed, AFTER the blood tests. Follow-up blood tests have revealed even more useful information. The small-bowel follow-through revealed even MORE useful information for my case. I think each situation differs. It would be great if the biopsy does become a thing of the past. In the meantime, I'm glad it's available and *relatively speaking* painless. [The prep is worse than the test.] For a child, I think it would be better to explore all possible non-invasive things first. Blood tests are mildly invasive and troublesome. MRI and CT are painless and prep-free but don't know if they can reveal enough info about intestines. The pill-cam; I don't know if that works for kids, how much info it can reveal, and if it involves " cleansing " prep. If the pill-cam involves cleansing prep, then you might as well have endoscopy and colonoscopy! If you're doing the worst part, might as well get biopsies out of the hassle. Just my opinion perhaps. (Before the testing, I was agitating for the pill-cam instead of colonoscopy and endoscopy. But in retrospect I am glad I got the biopsies so I have the information they revealed.) Without biopsies, I wouldn't have known about lymphocytic colitis. And believe me, that's important information to know! Without knowing about the LC, I'd still be using aspirin or other NSAIDs for headaches (back aches, muscle and joint aches, etc) and would still be sick, sick, sick... and it would still be a mystery. But learning about the LC means I know something to avoid beyond gluten. Esther in RI > > Something to ponder about....... > > As technology progresses, I believe a biopsy for diagnosis will be a > thing of the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Currently most doctors won't give it the "blessing" if both haven't been done. I think you are correct in that it will probably not be so in the future, but for now while this is still relatively "unknown" to most doctors I think it will remain. I personally wanted it all, just to have no arguement from anyone (other doctors, should we ever have to switch GI's for some reason, teachers, etc...and especially from my son when he hits the teen years and will look for any loophole to have it not be true.) And the endoscopy was so NOT even a blip on the big issue scale for him, that it was really jsut another step. I'd choose to go through the endoscopy again with him WAY before I'd choose to do another blood test!!!! From: SillyYaks [mailto:SillyYaks ] On Behalf Of Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:22 PMTo: SillyYaks Subject: testing opinion Something to ponder about.......As technology progresses, I believe a biopsy for diagnosis will be a thing of the past. There's a reason why our bodies make antibodies. They're produced in response to a specific foreign substance or organism (as a disease-producing microorganism) and counteracting their effects. In my opinion, I think you need to ask yourself, is it really necessary to put yourself or your loved one through such an invasive procedure to aquire a diagnosis of Celiac Disease? All tests have false negatives and false positives. And although this is true for the blood test, too, it's not an invasive procedure that has certain risks attached to the procedure. Doctors in the US are approaching this diagnosis differently. My sister & I recently went through this situation. We both have a child with Celiac Disease. We live in 2 geograpically different areas of the US and our children's doctor had 2 different diagnosing approaches. One strongly encouraged the biopsy after the positive blood test results and questioned my husband's and my decision not to have the biopsy. While, the other was convinced after the positive blood test results that the diagnosis of Celiac was confirmed and felt that a biopsy was unnecessary. This is just my view on things and wanted to share them with you. I'm not a doctor don't suggest anyone to go against medical advice. Have a great day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Ester, I agree with you that the endoscopy & colonoscopy can show very useful things occuring in your intestines. You're very fortunate to have uncovered these problems enabling you to follow up with further testing. I am not discounting the value of these procedures! I guess my view on this topic is that for the initial diagnosis of CD a blood test is the least invasive procedure to achieve that. If you get positive results than why not try the GF diet and see if symptoms subside? If the Dr wants to do an endoscopy and/or colonoscopy to see the damage, extent of damage or possible secondary diseases/lymphomas then that's an entirely different reason for the tests. As I'm sure you can see, the blood test is what did it for us, too. Best Wishes! > > > > Something to ponder about....... > > > > As technology progresses, I believe a biopsy for diagnosis will be a > > thing of the past. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Ester, I agree with you that the endoscopy & colonoscopy can show very useful things occuring in your intestines. You're very fortunate to have uncovered these problems enabling you to follow up with further testing. I am not discounting the value of these procedures! I guess my view on this topic is that for the initial diagnosis of CD a blood test is the least invasive procedure to achieve that. If you get positive results than why not try the GF diet and see if symptoms subside? If the Dr wants to do an endoscopy and/or colonoscopy to see the damage, extent of damage or possible secondary diseases/lymphomas then that's an entirely different reason for the tests. As I'm sure you can see, the blood test is what did it for us, too. Best Wishes! > > > > Something to ponder about....... > > > > As technology progresses, I believe a biopsy for diagnosis will be a > > thing of the past. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Ester, I agree with you that the endoscopy & colonoscopy can show very useful things occuring in your intestines. You're very fortunate to have uncovered these problems enabling you to follow up with further testing. I am not discounting the value of these procedures! I guess my view on this topic is that for the initial diagnosis of CD a blood test is the least invasive procedure to achieve that. If you get positive results than why not try the GF diet and see if symptoms subside? If the Dr wants to do an endoscopy and/or colonoscopy to see the damage, extent of damage or possible secondary diseases/lymphomas then that's an entirely different reason for the tests. As I'm sure you can see, the blood test is what did it for us, too. Best Wishes! > > > > Something to ponder about....... > > > > As technology progresses, I believe a biopsy for diagnosis will be a > > thing of the past. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 I think the problem is that it seems like the blood test can give false positives or negatives, and once you switch to a gluten free diet it then is not possible to have an accurate biopsy. I think it is especially important for kids who may not want to comply with the diet when they have freedom to do so later in life, and don't really " believe " the blood results. I certainly didn't enjoy the biopsy (big understatement), but i don't think it's too bad, really- no pain or discomfort afterwards, either. Compared to, say, a C-section, no biggee! (no, i don't have kids but I've seen it on tv and it scares the heck out of me). and well worth it for the certainty. Now if the doctors just can get it together and agree on a really accurate method of diagnosis that is as simple as a blood test (or even less traumatic!), that would be fantastic, especially as i have children and we want to have them tested. Here's hoping for the future! (and that gluten tolerance pill!) > > Ester, > > I agree with you that the endoscopy & colonoscopy can show very > useful things occuring in your intestines. You're very fortunate to > have uncovered these problems enabling you to follow up with further > testing. I am not discounting the value of these procedures! > > I guess my view on this topic is that for the initial diagnosis of CD > a blood test is the least invasive procedure to achieve that. If you > get positive results than why not try the GF diet and see if symptoms > subside? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 I think the problem is that it seems like the blood test can give false positives or negatives, and once you switch to a gluten free diet it then is not possible to have an accurate biopsy. I think it is especially important for kids who may not want to comply with the diet when they have freedom to do so later in life, and don't really " believe " the blood results. I certainly didn't enjoy the biopsy (big understatement), but i don't think it's too bad, really- no pain or discomfort afterwards, either. Compared to, say, a C-section, no biggee! (no, i don't have kids but I've seen it on tv and it scares the heck out of me). and well worth it for the certainty. Now if the doctors just can get it together and agree on a really accurate method of diagnosis that is as simple as a blood test (or even less traumatic!), that would be fantastic, especially as i have children and we want to have them tested. Here's hoping for the future! (and that gluten tolerance pill!) > > Ester, > > I agree with you that the endoscopy & colonoscopy can show very > useful things occuring in your intestines. You're very fortunate to > have uncovered these problems enabling you to follow up with further > testing. I am not discounting the value of these procedures! > > I guess my view on this topic is that for the initial diagnosis of CD > a blood test is the least invasive procedure to achieve that. If you > get positive results than why not try the GF diet and see if symptoms > subside? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 I believe it's called Emla cream, or something like that. > > When my daughter has to have blood drawn, they put some type of > numbing cream on her arm and cover it with a large, clear piece of > tape. It stays on there aprox 30 minutes. I believe it works well > since she's never cries or dreads having blood drawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 I believe it's called Emla cream, or something like that. > > When my daughter has to have blood drawn, they put some type of > numbing cream on her arm and cover it with a large, clear piece of > tape. It stays on there aprox 30 minutes. I believe it works well > since she's never cries or dreads having blood drawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 I believe it's called Emla cream, or something like that. > > When my daughter has to have blood drawn, they put some type of > numbing cream on her arm and cover it with a large, clear piece of > tape. It stays on there aprox 30 minutes. I believe it works well > since she's never cries or dreads having blood drawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 We got a prescription from our ped - lidocaine I think? Sounds like the same thing, because the directions said to put some fancy bandaid with a clear window on it. We ended up not using it, but it may come in handy one day. Trudy > > > > When my daughter has to have blood drawn, they put some type of > > numbing cream on her arm and cover it with a large, clear piece of > > tape. It stays on there aprox 30 minutes. I believe it works well > > since she's never cries or dreads having blood drawn. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 Lidocaine, for numbing, is OK, I should know as I get it in the butt every other day with antibotic Coleen Re: testing opinion > We got a prescription from our ped - lidocaine I think? Sounds like > the same thing, because the directions said to put some fancy bandaid > with a clear window on it. We ended up not using it, but it may come > in handy one day. > > Trudy > > > > > > > When my daughter has to have blood drawn, they put some type of > > > numbing cream on her arm and cover it with a large, clear piece of > > > tape. It stays on there aprox 30 minutes. I believe it works > well > > > since she's never cries or dreads having blood drawn. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 Lidocaine, for numbing, is OK, I should know as I get it in the butt every other day with antibotic Coleen Re: testing opinion > We got a prescription from our ped - lidocaine I think? Sounds like > the same thing, because the directions said to put some fancy bandaid > with a clear window on it. We ended up not using it, but it may come > in handy one day. > > Trudy > > > > > > > When my daughter has to have blood drawn, they put some type of > > > numbing cream on her arm and cover it with a large, clear piece of > > > tape. It stays on there aprox 30 minutes. I believe it works > well > > > since she's never cries or dreads having blood drawn. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 Lidocaine, for numbing, is OK, I should know as I get it in the butt every other day with antibotic Coleen Re: testing opinion > We got a prescription from our ped - lidocaine I think? Sounds like > the same thing, because the directions said to put some fancy bandaid > with a clear window on it. We ended up not using it, but it may come > in handy one day. > > Trudy > > > > > > > When my daughter has to have blood drawn, they put some type of > > > numbing cream on her arm and cover it with a large, clear piece of > > > tape. It stays on there aprox 30 minutes. I believe it works > well > > > since she's never cries or dreads having blood drawn. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.