I was wondering where in the lawsuits it stated that a 20 cm common channel was found? I think I missed it while reading over them. This makes me extremely nervous...Dr. Husted was my surgeon. I had complete and wonderful care from him...all of my pre-op tests, I was well taken care of...I have had no complications as of yet from my surgery. I guess I would have to have some kind of radical complication to even find out if I had an issue huh? I was given my paperwork and it stated, along with Dr. Husted himself...that I was given a 75 cm common channel...hopefully all will be well with my health but I'm kind of freaking out!
When and where did you have your surgery?
I had my surgery on October 13, 2009 at Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital in Somerset, Ky.
Dr Husted did my surgery in 2002 and I hav had so many complications I have had 6 Blood Transfusions several Iron Transfusions and too many problems right now to list..He did the Fobi Pouch in Nashville at Baptist, Has anyone else encountered problems with the Fobi? I go see a surgeon next week to see whats going on...
I just reviewed an older article that involved a Brazilian patient cohort that got Fobi GBP's. There were wayyyyy too many complications for my comfort, that's for sure. At the time the article was published (it was a study of WLS done on their national health care system, measuring quality-of-life outcomes to show that NHS money was well spent) that procedure was the standard in Brazil. I don't know if that has changed (hopefully so, the article was over ten years old), but it was pretty scary to see the types and rates of complications and their conclusions that it was still money well spent. *shudder*
EN, there are two reasons (at least that I am aware of) why results that look crappy to us are sometimes evaluated as good by the authors of these articles:
1. There are comparing results with a given wls to results without surgery, which we all know has a greater than 95% failure rate and no resolution, in fact gradual worsening, of comorbidities. For example, a recent article from Australia, where lap band is common, looked at longterm results with lap band and concluded that lap band provided on average 47% excess weight loss longterm. Now, according to the AMSBS definition of success, 50% excess weight loss equals success. And even that doesn't sound great to most patients. But even having fallen below that rather low standard, the authors concluded that lap band results were good!
2. Often, the authors are looking at their own results. No one wants to believe that their hard work has not lead to good results. So whatever the result, whether in terms of pounds or comorbidities or quality of life, it's easy to mentally compare that to where the patients started out and figure that your results are "good", even when they are really only mediocre.
You're quite right, Larra. The "it's a lot better than no intervention" argument is SUPER common in this literature, although the more recent pieces seem to be slowly getting a bit more nuanced. The QOL issue is getting LOTS more attention than it did even ten years ago, I'm happy to say.
There's a very passionate psychologist at Penn, Dr. David Sarwer, who is giving voice to this idea that weight loss is probably the smaller, if not smallEST, measure of WLS success overall--although without reasonably decent weight loss, the other measures are a lot less meaningful as well. He advocates eloquently for a broad view of what obesity treatment means to people. I don't know if he has done any original research in the area (yet), but he wrote a terrific lit review rather recently. I'll try to remember to upload it here.
Penn has a pretty darned comprehensive evaluation and treatment protocol for their WLS patients. They are to be lauded for their multidisciplinary approach and for not being as fast as many other programs to clear people for surgery. I should start a new thread to see if there's anyone on here who went through their program....Not terribly likely, since we're mostly DSers in these parts and they don't offer the DS. If only they'd get on board that train!!
I find it very interesting these other docs are so willing to be publicly critical. This is very unusual. Docs will usually go to any length to protect one of their own. There's a lot going on behind the scenes here.
And I can think of another one who was a Schlesinger patient, who had a 20 cm CC that Roslin fixed, but she died recently of a stroke. She was very very ill by the time Roslin fixed her - don't know if the long-term malnutrition had anything to do with her stroke. Oh, and Husted and Schlesinger were in the same practice under Dr. Gitt pretty close in time, if not overlapping as I recall. And I know of yet another Schlesinger 20 cm CC that Keshishian fixed.
Because of the heavy presence of Hustead's byline on the OtHer site, I learned about the DS from his articles there. Called him a few years ago (three? four?) to explore revision. He called back, left a message, said he was no longer in Kentucky (had moved/was moving to AZ if I'm recalling that part correctly). Anyway, he was SO nice. SUCH a good front-end manner. Kind. Confidence-inspiring.
But there was sumthin... maybe just that my exploration was preliminary... maybe my angels were workin' overtime that day... I decided to try another round of diet and exercise (to the tune of an additional 30 lbs by time of revision, but I digress)... Kept thinking I should be able to find a way to *work my tool.* Until now, until reading this thread I've wished I'd revised to the DS sooner, while I was a couple years healthier. But that could have easily meant revising with Hustead.
Flabbergasted at this thread and all the suffering these 20 cm CCs have caused. Feeling very grateful I waited. It puts my pokey weight loss and other complications in perspective (again).
Post by califsleevin on Mar 31, 2013 10:18:01 GMT -5
There's a guy who comes to Rabkin's Ventura group sometimes who had a Husted 20cm DS (done in Nashville). He eventually had it revised by Crookes to an RNY and is now happy and healthy(er). I don't know the back story as to why he went with Crookes for his revision and not Rabkin or Keshesian.