Hello, My Doc. also said, that biopsy is ok, every 5 years. It is too invasive!
During my last visit to doctor he mentioned 5 years between liver biopsy. He also didn't suggest the fibro scan. Said it can cause unwarranted alarm or something like that. He didn't even know about the wedge laproscopic procedure.
I agree that generally biopsies are not performed that frequently for the reasons stated. But of course, there are circumstances which would warrant it. I underwent biopsies days and weeks apart but my situation was not typical. I suffered no problems from the biopsies so from a safety standpoint I would guess that it's not without risks but the risks usually aren't very significant.
Mike
Thanks JP - I wasn't sure of the underpinning of your comment and wanted to be sure.
I've not heard of any risks Trish. Just that in most patients less than 3-5 years is not enough time to see any real change for the better or worse.
Depends why you're asking. If it's because you had a biopsy and now your team wants another one because of a changed situation or different doc or what have you and they want a reassessment because they don't trust the original results, then it may be warranted in that kind of situation. Other than that, I'd go with Jenny Penny's response.
JP - any stats on risks associated with biopsies prior to 3 years or are you saying it's unwarranted but not a risk?
The recommended wait is 3-5 years. Before that is too soon.
I should qualify my statement by saying that a biopsy is, of course, an invasive procedure that carries some risk with it. Therefore, I believe doctors don't like to have it performed any more frequently than absolutely needed.
I don't thnk it's "bad" in the sense it would harm you, but I believe they are usually further apart, maybe a few years... I guess it depends on the individual patient, degree of damage, etc.