I do not claim to be a medical expert but ---
Having recently undergone a Colonoscopy with very limited result - due to a thickening of the bowel from an earlier (9 yrs ago) op - and therefore resulting in failure to reach the whole bowel; I have now been sent for an Colonography which I understand to be far less invasive, with a marginally easier prep period and with results at least as good as a Colonoscopy.- (so I understand ? )
The fact is that the thickened bowel (on my records) was apparently not seen as a drawback to having a Colonoscopy- was this because that was a cheaper option than a Colonography and therefore the "go to" option; or simply a question of failing to understand the potential implications ? Whichever, it proved to be better than I expected, until the obstruction was seen - when it became very uncomfortable and largely a waste of time both for the Hospital team and me.
This experience has made me realise that, if I had understood the Colonoscopy process better, I could have said at the time that I would prefer a Colonography as being potentially less invasive and equally (?) effective.;
The moral here is , perhaps, don't be afraid to ask about other options before taking the first answer as gospel !
Hi xbargee.
Just wondering if you had seen the NHS page about the 2 processes:
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/bowel-cancer/diagnosis/
Article ends with:
"A CT colonography can help identify potentially cancerous areas in people who cannot have a colonoscopy because of other medical reasons.
It’s less invasive than a colonoscopy, but you may still need to have colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy at a later stage so any abnormal areas can be removed or biopsied."
Also meant to give this link too:
www.gov.uk/.../nhs-bowel-cancer-screening-programme-having-a-ct-colonography-ctc-scan
