gingermagic wrote:I have been looking at this quite intensively now.
It would appear that MRV scans are lof ittle use, alone. Really a doppler is the main first port of call. Zamboni initially only does the doppler as the first port of call, as I understand.
The doppler then gives the evidemce required to qua;ify the necesity for a venogram. An MRV only give pretty picture as far as I am aware.
So just beware people, be sure that your radiologist ticks all the boxes before you spend your time and money on someone elses training!
Do I sound bitter?
gingermagic wrote:I have recently been scanned for CCSVI in the UK by Dr Crowe. My interventional radiologist says that apart for minor narrowing of the lowermost part of my left internal jugular vein, everything is satisfactory.
Dr Crowe suspects, and I quote ,'if I were to go to Poland or Italy I may be offered a balloon angioplasty procedure but his opinion is that unless a venogram documented a significant pressure gradient across the narrowing such a procedure is only likely to cost money with little likelihood of significant improvement'.
As someone from CCSVI UK told me, 'Without the correct training, even sticking to the correct protocols, and with the appropriate software, identification of CCSVI is a needle in a hay stack.'
How vital is the appropriate training?
Can anyone offer me any technical information on why any good interventional radiologist cannot spot CCSVI.
Users browsing this forum: AMcG