Guest guest Posted September 1, 2001 Report Share Posted September 1, 2001 Bob, My point was not that the DS is investigational, as I have devoted hundreds of hours to disproving that notion. However, the fully laprascopic DS IS investigational. The data are simply not sufficient to prove that lap DS is as safe as open. The suregons are not very experienced with this procedure done laprascopically. With only 1 report on only 40 cases, I would be hard to make an argument otherwise. By comparison, the open DS has well over 1000 reported cases in the literature with over 10 years of data. The real question is: Is getting a smaller scar and maybee a day or two less time in the hospital worth the increased risk? There is no proof that Lap DS gives any better outcome. Now the lap assisted DS that Rabkin does might be argued to be at least somewhat established. With over 100 procedures published an excellent results, I would be less concerned about the lap assisted procedure. Hull > > My point is that > > the lap DS is in its " investigational " period and as they say " caveat > > emptor " . > > > > Hull > > I'm glad you don't work for my insurance company. By your logic, > Coronary Arterial Bypass Graft (CABG) surgery is still investigational. > They still have leaks, arrhythmias, and deaths. Cardiac bypass has a > published mortality rate of about 1.2% and 11% of patient have had a > previous bypass (see http://heart-surgeon.com/coronary- bypass.html .) Makes > the DS stats look real good. It really is a good thing that most medical > folks use efficacy and outcomes to declare a procedure as common practice. > > Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.