Building inspection vs. MRI
October 19, 2018 | 25,00 EUR | answered by MD Felix Aaslepp
A friend has stated that she had a laparoscopy done based only on suspicion. This means that the doctor apparently needed to perform an invasive operation under general anesthesia to determine something in the abdominal area.
Are there situations in the abdominal area that could not have been detected with an MRI?
Why is an invasive operation chosen for diagnostic purposes when other non-invasive methods are available?
Is this solely based on the financial resources that health insurance companies would typically have to spend, which could be significantly higher with an MRI?
Hello!
First of all, it must be noted that a diagnostic laparoscopy under general anesthesia is significantly more expensive than an MRI of the abdomen. So this is certainly not the reason.
Furthermore, the purpose or benefit of such a procedure is difficult to assess if it is not known what the suspicion is and what exactly is to be looked for.
In general, at least a CT or ultrasound of the abdomen has usually been done. In such an examination, there may have been an abnormality that now needs to be further investigated. Furthermore, the diagnostic laparoscopy has the advantage that a tissue sample can be taken directly to be further examined. This is conceivable, for example, in the case of a tumor or a condition known as endometriosis.
A diagnostic laparoscopy can therefore definitely be medically justified and the preferred option. If your acquaintance has any concerns about this, she should simply discuss this openly with the treating physician.
... Are you also interested in this question? 
