Non-invasive tests such as Fibroscan are good for detecting either no fibrosis or extensive fibrosis, but not very good for the grade and stage in between. I've posted a link to some info below.
Liver biopsies carry certain risks, such as internal bleeding, although these are rare. However, they can provide a more accurate picture of the degree of liver damage. Some info below.
Hope this helps and it would be a good idea to discuss these options with your doctor.
Love Steff xx
Moocow said
May 25, 2011
The fibroscan procedure? Beats the biopsy, for sure.
PJ said
May 25, 2011
I have not heard of it either, though I did hear that they were supposed to be coming up with a less invasive way of "seeing" the liver. I'd certainly opt for the Fibrosure if given a choice.
Ron Gilbert said
May 25, 2011
I was not offered anything but a biopsy to check for scarring on the liver.
Have not heard of Fibrosure.
Wish I could be more help.
Ron
pmrad5 said
May 25, 2011
Hello,
I'm going to see doc about starting tx. Is there a big difference (results wise) between
Hi pmrad5,
Non-invasive tests such as Fibroscan are good for detecting either no fibrosis or extensive fibrosis, but not very good for the grade and stage in between. I've posted a link to some info below.
http://www.hcvadvocate.org/hepatitis/factsheets_pdf/non-invasive_markers.pdf
Liver biopsies carry certain risks, such as internal bleeding, although these are rare. However, they can provide a more accurate picture of the degree of liver damage. Some info below.
http://www.hcvadvocate.org/hepatitis/factsheets_pdf/Biopsy.pdf
Hope this helps and it would be a good idea to discuss these options with your doctor.
Love Steff xx
The fibroscan procedure? Beats the biopsy, for sure.
I was not offered anything but a biopsy to check for scarring on the liver.
Have not heard of Fibrosure.
Wish I could be more help.
Ron
Hello,
I'm going to see doc about starting tx. Is there a big difference (results wise) between
these two procedures?
Prob. infected 89-90 geno 1 vl=2.7 mil
pmrad5