13 ms·

The most common cancer: colon cancer, would be 95% preventable if only people got over silly notions about their butts and got a colonoscopy when they have reac

The most common cancer: colon cancer, would be 95% preventable if only people got over silly notions about their butts and got a colonoscopy when they have reached age 45-50. Colon cancer takes a decade to develop from polyp to tumour. The main purpose of a colonoscopy is to find and snip any polyps there could be in the colon. Then you'd be safe from colon cancer for a decade or more. You would normally not feel much: the sensory nerves in the colon are only really able to feel if you have gas. And many hospitals offer sedation, so you wouldn't need to experience the procedure anyway. The worst part is the restricted diet for a week before (avoiding foods that would cling to the intestine wall) and emptying the bowels the day before. If you know that you have healthy kidneys, do ask your doctor for the good laxative that is a small dose that doesn't taste bad. Myself I have an unusual genetic condition, so I unlike normal people, I do a colonoscopy every year. I stay awake and watch the monitor, because I actually want to see what I look like inside. At the end when you reach the small intestine, the cilia on the walls inside there are quite fascinating.

gambiting 5y ago
There is an interesting difference between the way countries approach this btw. In US, sedation is standard and used in 90%+ of colonoscopies. In UK sedation is rarely used unless specifically requested by the patient, you usually get some gas and air instead. It's not even due to cost, it's just that sedation for colonoscopy is generally unnecessary, it's an uncomfortable but not particularily painful procedure.
- Gareth321 5y ago
  It's unnecessary but a lot of pain medication is "unnecessary." We use it to reduce pain because we don't like to feel pain. This seems self evidently common sense to me. In New Zealand my colonoscopies were carried out with ketamine, which is incredibly safe under medical supervision. Unless there are contraindicated medical conditions, I see no reason not to use something like ketamine or a light dose of oxygenated nitrous oxide.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    >>or a light dose of oxygenated nitrous oxide. Which is what "gas and air" is in the context of my comment.
  - ajuc 5y ago
    In Poland they give you option for sedation, but advise against it because sedation disables the feedback from patient and that slightly increases the risk of complications. When they do the procedure they ask how you feel and when it gets too uncomfortable they change the angle etc. I've had like a dozen of colonoscopies (have to be checked every year cause of risk factors), and they were never really painful.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    Pain relief and sedation are two separate things. Nitrous oxide is a fairly strong anagelsic (pain medication) but a very weak sedative. That's exactly why it's often used for minor routine procedures where keeping the patient awake and reasonably alert is more valuable than keeping the patient fully sedated.
    - cjrp 5y ago
      Used a lot during birth here in the UK too
- adastra22 5y ago
  It is not due to cost, but profit. In the US the hospital makes more money if you get sedated. So why not offer, or even push it?
- objclxt 5y ago
  > In UK sedation is rarely used unless specifically requested by the patient It varies by hospital trust, there is no uniform guideline. My local NHS hospital sedates for colonoscopy as a matter of course (using fentanyl). But as you say, some don’t, and others ask the patient.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    Fair enough, I was told that this is standard practice
- jorvi 5y ago
  The US loves to sedate. You guys get absolutely blasted when you have your wisdom teeth removed. In most of Europe you get strong pill painkillers for the first few days and then it’s paracetamol.
  - samatman 5y ago
    I don't know if you're expressing a common misconception here, but a lot of Americans also think general anaesthetic is widely used for wisdom teeth removal, and it isn't. What is widely used is deep sedation, a combination of ketamine and benzos which keeps the patient calm and, the nice part, prevents any memories of the event from forming. It's maybe an extra hour of recovery, same-day procedure in either case. Post-care is a few day's worth of entry-level painkillers unless the patient gets a dry socket. We use acetaminophen for post-treatment rather than paracetamol, since it's better (never understood the British obsession with that stuff, it's nasty business). Anywhere else I would walk away from a terrible joke like that, but this is HN. I'm joking.
    - gambiting 5y ago
      You really got me there, was halfway through writing an angry reply when I read the last sentence.
    - Noumenon72 5y ago
      I don't see the joke -- is this entire post untrue then?
      - samatman 5y ago
        Ah no. It hinges on paracetamol and acetaminophen being two names for the same analgesic. Everything but that sentence was perfectly serious. It's also a rare joke where explaining it won't reduce the effect: by the time a Brit hits the end of the offending sentence, it's too late.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
ajuc 5y ago
I have to have colonoscopy every year since I was 18 because of risk factors. I agree it's much less awful than people think (and I especially agree that laxatives and liquid diet prior to it suck much more than the procedure itself). I never take sedation cause it doesn't really hurt and doctors say it's better to have feedback from the patient. I also have to do MRI every year and it's much more frustrating for me because they always complain I'm breathing wrong, and I have asthma so it's not easy to "breath right". It takes ages.
- speedgoose 5y ago
  I think it depends. It doesn't hurt for you but it does for me. I had to take some pain killers during mine. The doctor told me that having a bigger belly would help, though I should not become fat for the next time.
  - hardlianotion 5y ago
    Yes - mine was no-fuss, but my sister had major reflux-like complaints and great discomfort after hers.
- adamredwoods 5y ago
  In my experience, the entire process takes up about 3 days: 2 for the colon cleansing, 1 for the process and recovery from sedation and possible biopsies.
  - tluyben2 5y ago
    Mine takes in total 1 evening and 1 morning; the cleansing is 1 evening and they biopsy on the way through which makes it take up a little bit more time but not much. And I never take the sedation as I want to really get out of there asap and I don't feel much anyway.
- Teknoman117 5y ago
  The first (and only) time I ever had a CAT scan was pretty awful because they didn't tell me exactly what to do. I walked into an urgent care because I had severe back pain. They put me through a bunch of chest x-rays where they told me to inhale and hold my breath, then they bring me over to the CAT scanner and tell me to hold my breath when the light goes green. So I inhale and hold my breath. Then the tech comes out and tells me "did you inhale? don't do that, it ruins the results". They decided not to re-run them because the odds I had something wrong even with those symptoms were apparently less than the odds of the additional CAT scan giving me cancer down the line. Certainly didn't help my peace of mind. But the muscle relaxants and a proper desk chair seems to clear it up within a week so I guess they were right...
heleninboodler 5y ago
How many have you had? My understanding is the risk of a perforated colon is actually quite high, like 1 in 500. Do you worry about that risk? I got referred to a gastroenterologist before I was 45 and he talked me out of it because he didn't think it was going to show anything (my symptoms that I was referred there for were gone by then) and the risk wasn't worth it. Obviously if you're going to get some life-saving results, the risk-reward calculation changes.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  You consider 1 in 500 high? That's only 0.2%. At that rate, assuming the probability of complication for each procedure is independent from all the others, you could undergo the procedure 20 times with only about a 4% chance of complication. Since the American Cancer Society only recommends colonoscopy every 10 years, starting at age 45, most people wouldn't even have 5 procedures done in a lifetime, which would give about a 1% cumulative chance of complication.
  - heleninboodler 5y ago
    That is very high if you get one every year.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      So, don't do that, unless you have enough risk factors to justify it. Get it done once every 10 years as per the recommendation.
      - heleninboodler 5y ago
        You realize the context of my question was that I was responding to someone who actually does get one done every year, right? And that I acknowledged that the risk-reward calculation changes quite a bit depending on what risk factors you have? I don't know what point you're trying to make, unless you think I'm just wrong to be asking this person in a special circumstance how he thinks about the risk. For example, perhaps there are extra precautions that I don't know about that can be taken for someone for whom yearly scopes are important.
Gareth321 5y ago
This is good advice but that laxative can be a doozy. I was pooping for 12 hours straight. I had to drink several litres of laxative. I'm sure it was squeaky clean inside afterwards.
Flankk 5y ago
You're clearly someone who takes care of yourself, so why watch polyps being snipped from your colon on a tiny screen? Hi, I'm Cologuard. I'm a non-invasive product to detect altered DNA in your stool. I find 92% of colon cancers even in early stages.
hef19898 5y ago
After being diagnosed with colon cancer when I was 26, I'd say start even earlier. Don't settle for "it's probably just hemorrhoid's". That's the reason my kids will start when they are 16. Does anyone know why I got cancer? No. Does it really matter? Honestly, no. Just to re-iterate the point: Go through all the screening you can, cancer (of any form) is easer treated when caught early. Or even prevented.
- Tenoke 5y ago
  >Go through all the screening you can, cancer (of any form) is easer treated when caught early. Or even prevented. There's reasons why we don't screen for all cancers all the time - one being that when you are young and healthy the false negative rate and risk of complications of the test are often higher than the chance the test catches something.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Full-fledged biopsies, without any other indication, are exaggerated. A simple colonoscopy isn't. Nor are the other, standard, screening tests. And still most people just don't even use the standard screening options. My personal guess, because people are afraid the screening is finding something. Without the screening, you can happily continue your life in ignorance. Usually, this is regretted if they actually have cancer later, once the cancer is so advanced that actual symptoms manifest.
- Findecanor 5y ago
  If you got it at 26, I'd recommend a gene test to see if there is a hereditary factor, and for your kids too. That is what I have. "Luckily", out of four siblings, I'm the only one that tested positive and therefore the only one in my family that gets checked every year.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    That was the first they did, now that's almost 14 years ago. Luckily it's not hereditary, would have sucked with a 3 year old back the day.
XorNot 5y ago
I've had a colonoscopy and yeah: it's a nothing procedure. You're anesthetized for it and there's no recovery period so its just been and done. You also feel great afterwards from the prep medicine (at least I did). If you have the money, I recommend a bidet toilet seat (which I recommend anyway) before you do the prep for it - makes the whole process a breeze.
dynamohk 5y ago
To scale whole population could just do ultra-sound for colon Polyps + CRP blood test. Then go from there.
- robbiep 5y ago
  Ultrasound is not a useful imaging modality for anything in the GI tract. Most countries do have FOBT screening available
makach 5y ago
See- I didn't know this. I'm in that age group. When I get my yearly checkup I will ask doctor to add it to the list of checks.
sitharus 5y ago
In my country we have a national program that screens via a stool sample, no need for colonoscopies unless the test comes back positive. It’s for 60-74 year old who aren’t at high risk of bowl cancer, those with family history still get colonoscopies.
JMS2021 5y ago
UK here for context. We only have to fast for 12-24 hours prior to the colonoscopy. You can drink water or plain tea (no sugar, cream or milk). They offer "gas and air" mainly. You don't even have to have that. You are fully awake during the procedure, laughing at the live HD video feed from inside you on the big screen. You can be fully anaesthetised but that's very rare here in the UK. After the appointment, it's a free cup of tea, and some biscuits. You have to wait for a couple of blood pressure tests, but after 15 mins recovery you can leave and go home. The entire process from entering the clinic unti leaving is about an hour. The process is mildly uncomfortable but not really painful. Nothing like childbirth for example. Don't be scared. It doesn't hurt too much. And as other commenters have written, any polyps they remove could have become tumours in 10 years, and afterwards, you are effectively safe from colon cancer for a decade. If the NHS (UK) find and remove any polyps, they'll add you to a watch list for regular colonoscopy procedures. I have one every 2-3 years, others have them annually. Get that camera up you... It might save your life.
- elric 5y ago
  > UK here for context. We only have to fast for 12-24 hours prior to the colonoscopy. You can drink water or plain tea (no sugar, cream or milk). Are you saying you only have to fast, without laxatives/prep? How does that work? I find it hard to imagine that anyone's colon is clean enough to get a good view after only fasting for a day?
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Based on how much my need for toilet paper depends on what I’ve been eating recently, I suspect diet makes a massive difference to how clean you are inside. Not sure how waiting longer than 24 hours is going to get you much cleaner in any case.
  - JMS2021 5y ago
    We have to take laxatives as well. The night before the appointment usually. That's when you must start fasting.
- soco 5y ago
code51 5y ago
Timely colonoscopies save lives. However, I have a hunch that frequent colonoscopies are maybe not a good idea. Doubts: 1. We know more but we don't know all things creating colon cancer. Knowing the existence of cancers caused by viruses, disinfection procedures applied on the device could matter a lot. 2. Even if we disinfect properly, we know of a notorious little fellow: H.pylori, which can go down to the intestines. "Helicobacter pylori infection is associated with colon adenomatous polyps detected by high-resolution colonoscopy." https://bmcgastroenterol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12876-018-0918-4 https://bmcgastroenterol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/... 3. H. pylori (which serves just as an example, there can be other bad guys) is really hard to get rid of with disinfectants. It builds up resistance over time so it's doubtful that our disinfectants currently in use will stay as effective as well. 4. Frequently putting a foreign object to different people's colons (yes, I know it's disinfected) would increase the probability of transmitting such unknown risks. I didn't talk about perforation risk. Just the possibly transmissible cancer risk. So I remain doubtful that it's completely harmless It's necessary but every year? Doubtful without more data. Finally, thanks for the people who invented and use it to save lives. I wanted to share my doubts on frequent colonoscopies
- krisoft 5y ago
  > It's necessary but every year? Doubtful without more data. Did you read the part where the commenter said that they have an unusual genetical condition and that's the reason they have yearly colonoscopies?
  - code51 5y ago
    Yes, I did. I'm not denying the validity of the case here. My concern is related with the core risks of the procedure.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Why are you concerned about it? Doctors aren't going to recommend intervals shorter than 10 years for people with no risk factors and even with risk factors the cancer screenings are every 5 years. If someone is getting them more frequently than that, there are probably additional factors. In the US, insurance isn't going to pay for it unless a doctor says it is medically necessary.
tluyben2 5y ago
> Myself I have an unusual genetic condition, so I unlike normal people, I do a colonoscopy every year. I stay awake and watch the monitor, because I actually want to see what I look like inside. At the end when you reach the small intestine, the cilia on the walls inside there are quite fascinating. Same here, but I stopped watching the monitors; I just watch a movie on my phone; makes it go (much) quicker for me => I hardly notice anything if the movie (or tv show) is good.
easytiger 5y ago
I know some gastroenterologists and they take competitive pride in how good they are at scoping patients. Not everywhere does the restricted diet as long as you suggest, but just don't eat bread with little seeds on it. They hate that
rigelbm 5y ago
To whomever might be curious, the author probably is talking about MUTYH-Associated Polyposis. If you have 2 of the wrong genes, you are very likely to develop colorectal cancer at some point in your life. That's why it's indicated that you test every year.

gambiting 5y ago

There is an interesting difference between the way countries approach this btw. In US, sedation is standard and used in 90%+ of colonoscopies. In UK sedation is rarely used unless specifically requested by the patient, you usually get some gas and air instead. It's not even due to cost, it's just that sedation for colonoscopy is generally unnecessary, it's an uncomfortable but not particularily painful procedure.

Gareth321 5y ago
It's unnecessary but a lot of pain medication is "unnecessary." We use it to reduce pain because we don't like to feel pain. This seems self evidently common sense to me. In New Zealand my colonoscopies were carried out with ketamine, which is incredibly safe under medical supervision. Unless there are contraindicated medical conditions, I see no reason not to use something like ketamine or a light dose of oxygenated nitrous oxide.
- gambiting 5y ago
  >>or a light dose of oxygenated nitrous oxide. Which is what "gas and air" is in the context of my comment.
- ajuc 5y ago
  In Poland they give you option for sedation, but advise against it because sedation disables the feedback from patient and that slightly increases the risk of complications. When they do the procedure they ask how you feel and when it gets too uncomfortable they change the angle etc. I've had like a dozen of colonoscopies (have to be checked every year cause of risk factors), and they were never really painful.
- vidarh 5y ago
  Pain relief and sedation are two separate things. Nitrous oxide is a fairly strong anagelsic (pain medication) but a very weak sedative. That's exactly why it's often used for minor routine procedures where keeping the patient awake and reasonably alert is more valuable than keeping the patient fully sedated.
  - cjrp 5y ago
    Used a lot during birth here in the UK too
adastra22 5y ago
It is not due to cost, but profit. In the US the hospital makes more money if you get sedated. So why not offer, or even push it?
objclxt 5y ago
> In UK sedation is rarely used unless specifically requested by the patient It varies by hospital trust, there is no uniform guideline. My local NHS hospital sedates for colonoscopy as a matter of course (using fentanyl). But as you say, some don’t, and others ask the patient.
- gambiting 5y ago
  Fair enough, I was told that this is standard practice
jorvi 5y ago
The US loves to sedate. You guys get absolutely blasted when you have your wisdom teeth removed. In most of Europe you get strong pill painkillers for the first few days and then it’s paracetamol.
- samatman 5y ago
  I don't know if you're expressing a common misconception here, but a lot of Americans also think general anaesthetic is widely used for wisdom teeth removal, and it isn't. What is widely used is deep sedation, a combination of ketamine and benzos which keeps the patient calm and, the nice part, prevents any memories of the event from forming. It's maybe an extra hour of recovery, same-day procedure in either case. Post-care is a few day's worth of entry-level painkillers unless the patient gets a dry socket. We use acetaminophen for post-treatment rather than paracetamol, since it's better (never understood the British obsession with that stuff, it's nasty business). Anywhere else I would walk away from a terrible joke like that, but this is HN. I'm joking.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    You really got me there, was halfway through writing an angry reply when I read the last sentence.
  - Noumenon72 5y ago
    I don't see the joke -- is this entire post untrue then?
    - samatman 5y ago
      Ah no. It hinges on paracetamol and acetaminophen being two names for the same analgesic. Everything but that sentence was perfectly serious. It's also a rare joke where explaining it won't reduce the effect: by the time a Brit hits the end of the offending sentence, it's too late.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

ajuc 5y ago

I have to have colonoscopy every year since I was 18 because of risk factors. I agree it's much less awful than people think (and I especially agree that laxatives and liquid diet prior to it suck much more than the procedure itself). I never take sedation cause it doesn't really hurt and doctors say it's better to have feedback from the patient. I also have to do MRI every year and it's much more frustrating for me because they always complain I'm breathing wrong, and I have asthma so it's not easy to "breath right". It takes ages.

speedgoose 5y ago
I think it depends. It doesn't hurt for you but it does for me. I had to take some pain killers during mine. The doctor told me that having a bigger belly would help, though I should not become fat for the next time.
- hardlianotion 5y ago
  Yes - mine was no-fuss, but my sister had major reflux-like complaints and great discomfort after hers.
adamredwoods 5y ago
In my experience, the entire process takes up about 3 days: 2 for the colon cleansing, 1 for the process and recovery from sedation and possible biopsies.
- tluyben2 5y ago
  Mine takes in total 1 evening and 1 morning; the cleansing is 1 evening and they biopsy on the way through which makes it take up a little bit more time but not much. And I never take the sedation as I want to really get out of there asap and I don't feel much anyway.
Teknoman117 5y ago
The first (and only) time I ever had a CAT scan was pretty awful because they didn't tell me exactly what to do. I walked into an urgent care because I had severe back pain. They put me through a bunch of chest x-rays where they told me to inhale and hold my breath, then they bring me over to the CAT scanner and tell me to hold my breath when the light goes green. So I inhale and hold my breath. Then the tech comes out and tells me "did you inhale? don't do that, it ruins the results". They decided not to re-run them because the odds I had something wrong even with those symptoms were apparently less than the odds of the additional CAT scan giving me cancer down the line. Certainly didn't help my peace of mind. But the muscle relaxants and a proper desk chair seems to clear it up within a week so I guess they were right...

heleninboodler 5y ago

How many have you had? My understanding is the risk of a perforated colon is actually quite high, like 1 in 500. Do you worry about that risk? I got referred to a gastroenterologist before I was 45 and he talked me out of it because he didn't think it was going to show anything (my symptoms that I was referred there for were gone by then) and the risk wasn't worth it. Obviously if you're going to get some life-saving results, the risk-reward calculation changes.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
You consider 1 in 500 high? That's only 0.2%. At that rate, assuming the probability of complication for each procedure is independent from all the others, you could undergo the procedure 20 times with only about a 4% chance of complication. Since the American Cancer Society only recommends colonoscopy every 10 years, starting at age 45, most people wouldn't even have 5 procedures done in a lifetime, which would give about a 1% cumulative chance of complication.
- heleninboodler 5y ago
  That is very high if you get one every year.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    So, don't do that, unless you have enough risk factors to justify it. Get it done once every 10 years as per the recommendation.
    - heleninboodler 5y ago
      You realize the context of my question was that I was responding to someone who actually does get one done every year, right? And that I acknowledged that the risk-reward calculation changes quite a bit depending on what risk factors you have? I don't know what point you're trying to make, unless you think I'm just wrong to be asking this person in a special circumstance how he thinks about the risk. For example, perhaps there are extra precautions that I don't know about that can be taken for someone for whom yearly scopes are important.

Gareth321 5y ago

This is good advice but that laxative can be a doozy. I was pooping for 12 hours straight. I had to drink several litres of laxative. I'm sure it was squeaky clean inside afterwards.

Flankk 5y ago

You're clearly someone who takes care of yourself, so why watch polyps being snipped from your colon on a tiny screen? Hi, I'm Cologuard. I'm a non-invasive product to detect altered DNA in your stool. I find 92% of colon cancers even in early stages.

hef19898 5y ago

After being diagnosed with colon cancer when I was 26, I'd say start even earlier. Don't settle for "it's probably just hemorrhoid's". That's the reason my kids will start when they are 16. Does anyone know why I got cancer? No. Does it really matter? Honestly, no. Just to re-iterate the point: Go through all the screening you can, cancer (of any form) is easer treated when caught early. Or even prevented.

Tenoke 5y ago
>Go through all the screening you can, cancer (of any form) is easer treated when caught early. Or even prevented. There's reasons why we don't screen for all cancers all the time - one being that when you are young and healthy the false negative rate and risk of complications of the test are often higher than the chance the test catches something.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Full-fledged biopsies, without any other indication, are exaggerated. A simple colonoscopy isn't. Nor are the other, standard, screening tests. And still most people just don't even use the standard screening options. My personal guess, because people are afraid the screening is finding something. Without the screening, you can happily continue your life in ignorance. Usually, this is regretted if they actually have cancer later, once the cancer is so advanced that actual symptoms manifest.
Findecanor 5y ago
If you got it at 26, I'd recommend a gene test to see if there is a hereditary factor, and for your kids too. That is what I have. "Luckily", out of four siblings, I'm the only one that tested positive and therefore the only one in my family that gets checked every year.
- hef19898 5y ago
  That was the first they did, now that's almost 14 years ago. Luckily it's not hereditary, would have sucked with a 3 year old back the day.

XorNot 5y ago

I've had a colonoscopy and yeah: it's a nothing procedure. You're anesthetized for it and there's no recovery period so its just been and done. You also feel great afterwards from the prep medicine (at least I did). If you have the money, I recommend a bidet toilet seat (which I recommend anyway) before you do the prep for it - makes the whole process a breeze.

dynamohk 5y ago

To scale whole population could just do ultra-sound for colon Polyps + CRP blood test. Then go from there.

robbiep 5y ago
Ultrasound is not a useful imaging modality for anything in the GI tract. Most countries do have FOBT screening available

makach 5y ago

See- I didn't know this. I'm in that age group. When I get my yearly checkup I will ask doctor to add it to the list of checks.

sitharus 5y ago

In my country we have a national program that screens via a stool sample, no need for colonoscopies unless the test comes back positive. It’s for 60-74 year old who aren’t at high risk of bowl cancer, those with family history still get colonoscopies.

JMS2021 5y ago

UK here for context. We only have to fast for 12-24 hours prior to the colonoscopy. You can drink water or plain tea (no sugar, cream or milk). They offer "gas and air" mainly. You don't even have to have that. You are fully awake during the procedure, laughing at the live HD video feed from inside you on the big screen. You can be fully anaesthetised but that's very rare here in the UK. After the appointment, it's a free cup of tea, and some biscuits. You have to wait for a couple of blood pressure tests, but after 15 mins recovery you can leave and go home. The entire process from entering the clinic unti leaving is about an hour. The process is mildly uncomfortable but not really painful. Nothing like childbirth for example. Don't be scared. It doesn't hurt too much. And as other commenters have written, any polyps they remove could have become tumours in 10 years, and afterwards, you are effectively safe from colon cancer for a decade. If the NHS (UK) find and remove any polyps, they'll add you to a watch list for regular colonoscopy procedures. I have one every 2-3 years, others have them annually. Get that camera up you... It might save your life.

elric 5y ago
> UK here for context. We only have to fast for 12-24 hours prior to the colonoscopy. You can drink water or plain tea (no sugar, cream or milk). Are you saying you only have to fast, without laxatives/prep? How does that work? I find it hard to imagine that anyone's colon is clean enough to get a good view after only fasting for a day?
- ben_w 5y ago
  Based on how much my need for toilet paper depends on what I’ve been eating recently, I suspect diet makes a massive difference to how clean you are inside. Not sure how waiting longer than 24 hours is going to get you much cleaner in any case.
- JMS2021 5y ago
  We have to take laxatives as well. The night before the appointment usually. That's when you must start fasting.
soco 5y ago

code51 5y ago

Timely colonoscopies save lives. However, I have a hunch that frequent colonoscopies are maybe not a good idea. Doubts: 1. We know more but we don't know all things creating colon cancer. Knowing the existence of cancers caused by viruses, disinfection procedures applied on the device could matter a lot. 2. Even if we disinfect properly, we know of a notorious little fellow: H.pylori, which can go down to the intestines. "Helicobacter pylori infection is associated with colon adenomatous polyps detected by high-resolution colonoscopy." https://bmcgastroenterol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12876-018-0918-4 https://bmcgastroenterol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/... 3. H. pylori (which serves just as an example, there can be other bad guys) is really hard to get rid of with disinfectants. It builds up resistance over time so it's doubtful that our disinfectants currently in use will stay as effective as well. 4. Frequently putting a foreign object to different people's colons (yes, I know it's disinfected) would increase the probability of transmitting such unknown risks. I didn't talk about perforation risk. Just the possibly transmissible cancer risk. So I remain doubtful that it's completely harmless It's necessary but every year? Doubtful without more data. Finally, thanks for the people who invented and use it to save lives. I wanted to share my doubts on frequent colonoscopies

krisoft 5y ago
> It's necessary but every year? Doubtful without more data. Did you read the part where the commenter said that they have an unusual genetical condition and that's the reason they have yearly colonoscopies?
- code51 5y ago
  Yes, I did. I'm not denying the validity of the case here. My concern is related with the core risks of the procedure.
maxerickson 5y ago
Why are you concerned about it? Doctors aren't going to recommend intervals shorter than 10 years for people with no risk factors and even with risk factors the cancer screenings are every 5 years. If someone is getting them more frequently than that, there are probably additional factors. In the US, insurance isn't going to pay for it unless a doctor says it is medically necessary.

tluyben2 5y ago

> Myself I have an unusual genetic condition, so I unlike normal people, I do a colonoscopy every year. I stay awake and watch the monitor, because I actually want to see what I look like inside. At the end when you reach the small intestine, the cilia on the walls inside there are quite fascinating. Same here, but I stopped watching the monitors; I just watch a movie on my phone; makes it go (much) quicker for me => I hardly notice anything if the movie (or tv show) is good.

easytiger 5y ago

I know some gastroenterologists and they take competitive pride in how good they are at scoping patients. Not everywhere does the restricted diet as long as you suggest, but just don't eat bread with little seeds on it. They hate that

rigelbm 5y ago

To whomever might be curious, the author probably is talking about MUTYH-Associated Polyposis. If you have 2 of the wrong genes, you are very likely to develop colorectal cancer at some point in your life. That's why it's indicated that you test every year.