pinto
Forum Replies Created
-
Chuck, as you probably learned from experience–there’s no independent data for hernia repair. Most important of all in the decision is trustworthiness. My view is unchanged–you can trust Dr. Kang and Stephen completely. Besides that their hospital is world class, world class, which of course includes testing. Good luck.
-
Thank you for mention of your original repair as I didn’t know some of those details. I commiserate with all what you had to go through. I understand now how you made your choice– how easy it would be for anyone to do so. Thank you again but I was referring to your most recent surgery by Dr. Belyansky, who by my google search found that he also does mesh implantation. As you have yet disavowed your claim that mesh surgery is an “industry” on par with the tobacco industry, I have to ask then how come Dr. Belyansky gets a free pass apparently. Or do you oppose his use as well?
(As far as myself, I am an IH patient myself having written first-person reviews here of surgeries and am merely challenging your tobacco metaphor claim. You should disavow it as inappropriate, for it is a disservice for patients.) -
Ah, @Good intentions you broke your own maxim: “There’s not much value in writing more words.” Breaking such is sure to happen when people run out of substantive thought. Your tobacco metaphor is misdirected and so may mislead patients about their options. How is it though that you relied on a mesh surgeon for removal to save you? Is his implantation of mesh ok but not by others? What’s the difference?
-
None whatsoever in terms of the previous discussion. One or more rogue doctors peddling drugs illegally are not “the medical profession”; nor does the matter have anything to do with hernia surgery. “Parallels” can be found between any entities in existence given enough imagination. But let’s have some fun, @Herniated: Demonstrate the “many parallels” between medical mesh and tobacco, making mesh surgery for inguinal hernias unethical. I look forward to the edification.
-
@Good intentions, I agree some people have been put into a suffering hell via their mesh implants. Further I am displeased hearing how some surgeons give them a run around, a circumstance acknowledged by surgeons in a recent article discussed here. .
But isn’t it true that the surgeon you highly recommend and who did your own removal surgery also implants mesh as well? How do you rectify it? You cannot say that the whole of medical mesh is an “industry” in the sense that it is based solely on financial gain without concern for patient well-being. Even churches, the most respected religions, ultimately must acquire revenues if they are to survive, to exist.
You speak as though advertising, promotion is solely an activity by tobacco producers. Nor are they the only ones who use powerfully persuasive messages a la Camel. Many a successful product owes much to such advertising including those with solely philanthropic or humanitarian purposes.
-
The tobacco metaphor is an unfortunate choice because it is quite ill-fitting the mesh situation but also because tobacco is so steeped in emotional machinations and premature deaths of millions. While mesh use has had millions of successful health outcomes, has there ever been one case of physical health enhancement by tobacco smoke inhalation? I understand you strongly oppose medical mesh but I am sure you will agree that there are certain cases that absolutely have no other choice but mesh. I do not believe that the originators of medical mesh had any other motivation than to effect optimal hernia surgery. I further believe that many mesh surgeons sincerely think they are doing the best medically that they can.
In rebuttal you state: “Profits before health,” as to mean that mesh producers are equivalent with tobacco producers in regard to the safeguarding of health. That’s extremely hyperbolic. Doing so does much disservice for patients considering mesh as well as disrespecting medicine in general. It’s one thing to critique but another when it turns to character assassination. I am not saying that mesh and its adherents are beyond reproach. Of course I agree there are issues that merit serious consideration, but steeping it in hyperbolic imagery of Satanic mesh producers and surgeons having not an iota concern for patient health and welfare hardly can further our understanding of matters of surgery. I just hope we can be dispassionate when considering these topics. 🙂
-
@Good intentions, please explain how mesh producers are “Very similar to the tobacco companies.” Tobacco companies got medical doctors to endorse cigarette smoking and other uses? Medical societies took monies in support from tobacco companies? Tobacco companies targeted not only adults but young children in their promotion of tobacco? Maybe breakfast cereal producers would have been more apt an analogy than that of tobacco?
-
@PeterC, thank you for your timely reply. I tried to engage with you long ago, as I followed your many postings. It is finally good to be in touch. Your reply unfortunately missed my meaning. First I never said you had a hernia (IH, that is). I have known for long yours is a sports hernia (the term, a misnomer). My previous post merely followed your reply when another member @David M invited you to post your surgery report:
“I [PeterC] don’t have to post my op report. … You can find the steps listed here
https://www.sportshernia.com/sports-hernia-approach/sports-hernia-options-operation/
The only step he doesn’t specify on the website is how [he treated the ‘leaves’ …].
…In the op report he specifies he cut… to create those leaves/flaps.”I note that you said you showed your op report to other surgeons for their opinions, so evidently you consider that op report to reflect accurately what Dr. Brown did or his version of sports hernia surgery. Thus the op report is important for understanding your case and situation. Because you didn’t answer my questions about the op report, let me cut to the chase as to what I think happened and possible remedy.
Assuming Dr. Brown is not a quack doctor—for he has helped many members/readers of this website and there appears a lack of abundance of his failures—and the MISSING step he applied to you but absent in his website explanation is an IH procedure, I propose he went on “auto pilot” during surgery, absentmindedly and wrongly applied the MISSING step for the wrong patient, resulting in a botched surgery and great harm to you.
Litigation seems the best avenue, one I believe this surgeon would applaud. However I believe I read a long time ago you did not want to litigate. Your decision seems illogical. It would likely reward you with sufficient funds needed to cover your medical expenses past and present. Your decision so seemingly misguided makes me think you already sought legal redress but could not find any firms to take up your case. If so, it may be because your case was not strong enough to do so. Could it be that they saw little evidence of medical malpractice? If so, then wouldn’t your descriptions of Dr. Brown be rather biased?
I am sorry, really am, that you have been so terribly harmed physically and spiritually as well. You were crushed, really crushed. Here we try to understand why it happened–for isn’t that your purpose? But it doesn’t make sense because Dr. Brown aided IH so much in the past. It’s a disconnect. So why shouldn’t we be surprised and want to know more about it? Given your many dispersions against him, it is reasonable for me to ask for clarity. You though seem to have avoided clarifying your op report, a document you yourself consider central to your situation. Your previous reply (“a wall of text,” your own words) seems a cloud cover. Can you come clean?
-
@PeterC, you report your operation followed the same steps for sports hernia as on the doctor’s website except for an unspecified step he did on you. Is this step a inguinal hernia surgery procedure? If not, then why did you go on to report that you had no hernia? (I realize of course “hernia” in sports hernia is a misnomer.)
Also, are the steps/procedures for sports hernia outlined on the website considered standard for that surgery? Given that you direct us to the website description in lieu of your doc’s surgery report, then means he followed the website’s outline except for the unspecified, missing step?
Finally, and I would ask any patient, how reliable can that surgery report be? If a quack doctor, then surely the report is likely cooked.
Finally still, I take it that your later consultations with other surgeons revealed to you that your doc did unexplainable procedures. What did these surgeons say about your doc’s surgery report? Did they disagree with his procedures as written in the report?
-
@Good intentions, thank you again. Let me challenge you, however, about your primary source and interpretation because this involves so crucial a matter–healing. Originally your statement was it takes “months to years,” invoking my response of “years?” 😀 You assured us that is the case.
That really does contradict numerous statements by surgeons including my own as to how physically active I can be. If a baller, myself included, who must so jump to his fullest yet its pivot point (groin) might still be healing into the years (?), then obviously I’ve got to curtail my playing. Maybe even most like golfing, dancing, whatever and well, maybe even household cleaning!
So what does your primary source say about it?
“Chapter 1 Overview of Wound Healing in Different Tissue Types
John D. Stroncek and W. Monty Reichert.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK3938/Partly true—-but only about brain tissue and the years-time part–bone. We cannot apply that to the groin especially since it doesn’t involve bone tissue (I believe); thus the source wouldn’t support the claim that IH healing can stretch into the years.
Required time for healing is a big issue. It remains open for discussion. I welcome any clarification about it.
-
Thank you both.
-
@Good intentions, writes
“It takes months or years for the collagen
to fully convert to the strongest form.
Permanent sutures could be considered as a
backup…”
Years? How does it square with the many surgeons who say patients will soon be back to their normal living after surgery. If the strongest form takes so long healing then hardly could surgeons make such promises. -
William, sorry about the misspelling. Edit function of HT sucks!
-
Willian, a slippery doc indeed! But it brought out discussion, didn’t it. It made me think about some things. Y’know, IHs have been medically dealt with for centuries and among the most frequent surgeries yet this issue of pain has hardly been scratched. I’m surprised the article didn’t make IH its sole focus. I would think the higher up on the body a hernia is, the less difficult. Would the issue of litigation against mesh be predominantly IH cases or variously divided among the types of hernia? The most severe cases I’ve heard involved IHs. Anyway I would think that the more widespread awareness in medicine of surgeon irresponsibility–as that of that quote, the more headway made about pain issues.
-
Oops. ‘IH’ was intended not ‘IG’.
-
I beg to differ with the interpretations of the survey thus far. Actually it is possible that ALL IG patients were HAPPY with their surgeries! Emphasis on possible. Please note that only 1/3 of the hernias included were IG and their outcomes nondisclosed. Thus the survey has uncertain relevance for HT, certainly the stats for happy/unhappy outcomes.
However I find an important statement in the article; thusly
“some surgeons are reluctant to accept responsibility over implants they use or have insufficient knowledge about their properties or do not inform their patients well about all the risks and benefits of mesh or indeed non-mesh options. Not unsurprisingly, a growing body of patients are losing trust in the surgical industry.”Remarkable. The statement comes from a group including four surgeons and the first time I have heard such from medical providers.
-
@Good intentions, please be careful of your misassumptions, as you might benefit by understanding that:
1 We are not all in the USA.
2 Ethics is not culture-bound; it is of universal importance.
3 The related history of “Nuremberg” is not a “US-thing” but a world matter.
I believe your own post demonstrates unwittingly “There’s not much value in writing more words.” -
@alephy stated:
“I honestly don’t see anything wrong with the topic of this post, or the discussion that followed. However I am reading among the lines of some of the answers strong feelings against any possible criticism of non mesh repairs and the surgeons that offer them, and the more so if you were actually one of their patients.”
You’re in left field in at least a couple of ways: 1 your misdirected support of this thread’s creation; and 2 claiming the “criticism” against this thread equates to opposing any criticism of non-mesh repairs. That certainly can’t apply to me, if so intended, because I have elsewhere defended some mesh doctors as well as cautioned uncritical views of tissue repair. Moreover as I made plain herein, the trouble with this thread is the sensationalized imagery not the critique of tissue repair. As I plainly said, ethics is a matter for any field or situation.
-
@Herniated claims:
1 “[The K] Repair … in my opinion [is] contrary to the Code [the Nuremberg Code, that is]”.
2 [K] essentially makes up his method as he goes along.
3 By not having an established or firm method, [K] conducts not surgery in the conventional sense but experimentation on patients [by which he can test and develop his method presumably].In other words, Herniated is saying that patients are unwittingly made to be unconsenting subjects in an experiment because the surgeon’s purpose is to experiment by which he can develop his method rather than– surgery believed by patients likely to correct their medical problem. Herniated calls [K] Repair a “secret” implying that Dr. K purposely keeps details of his method secret as expressed by Herniated himself: “Why are [K Repair details] kept secret? Is that ethical to keep the patient/subject in the dark? I don’t think so!”
Thus Herniated believes Dr. K’s actions trigger violations of the Nuremberg Code [hereafter, NC].The NC developed in response to the biomedical experimentation on “concentration camp prisoners”—obviously unconsenting subjects. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html The NC thrust was to protect human rights of experimental subjects. https://nazidoctorsandnurembergtrials.wordpress.com/
What evidence is there that Dr. K violates human rights? None! Surely his patients would laugh at the suggestion. Herniated claims are so wild that absolutely one must consider racism as the motivator. Note before I said as much, I asked Herniated what led him to such an extreme approach but received no reply.
I see nothing in Herniated’s post that evinces violations of human rights; therefore his use of the NC is not just unwarranted but irresponsible as well.
-
“The Nuremberg Code is a set of ethical research principles, developed in the wake of Nazi atrocities—specifically the inhumane and often fatal experimentation on human subjects without consent—during World War Two.”
https://fullfact.org/health/nuremberg-code-covid/Ditto @Good Intentions’ commentary about the issue. He is quite correct in saying that @Herniated’s reference to “Nuremberg” fits more a dramatic purpose than substantive. Its strong association cannot help but conjure up Nazi-like wrongdoing. As he indicated Herniated could have simply raised the issue of ethics by using that term.
As far as I know, this surgeon HEALS first and foremost. @Herniated failed to provide evidence that the surgeon contrarily is an experimenter. (Of course nearly any surgeon attempts to further improved practice but that is not the same as “experimentation.”) @Herniated also falls flat in demonstrating his own claimed knowledge of standard IG surgery.
@Alephy you are just as guilty as you support @Herniated’s actions here. Critique is necessary and important but there is no place for racism. However I must admit that commentary opposing @Herniated’s view assumes readers are educated including knowing history and being fairly conversant with critique and what it involves. Lack of education or training is no excuse for either of you promoting racism here.