My first criteria would be just how much Crohn's activity where. If your Crohn's is confined to one or two small areas and your quality of life sucks early surgery may well be a good option and wise choice.
IF on the other hand there are multiple areas of disease activity skipped thru out a good share of the intestines .... and quality of life sucks I'd wouldn't be as quick to agree to surgery. I'd have to know a whole lot more about my disease activity, sites of activity, narrowing and stricturing and whether disease activity at the sites of narrowing and stricturing or whether they were due to scar tissue. Whilst the doctors can't guarantee what they feel they are seeing via the various tests they can get a pretty darn good idea if they've run the gamut of pertinent tests. And I would be wanting them to go over the films w/me and point out the areas involved, every one of them. And have to be satisfied we had done all the tests that could best identify the problems.
I know, altho my quality of life was pretty darn good, I would have AGREED to a second resection 9 years ago IF the surgeon would have been willing to concede to leave one area alone that was somewhat narrowed but displaying NO SIGNS of active disease. And that is what we are disagreeing about now. We both agree on the one area at the old anastomosis site, we don't agree on another area below that partial obstruction. When I return to Mayo in October and if we still don't agree - there still will be no surgery done. My quality of life does not warrant surgery yet.
Some people are like Slinkies... Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
Post Edited (CrohnieToo) : 9/21/2008 10:44:18 AM (GMT-6)