- even 'almost miraculous' -, so why is there a need to devise a modified procedure, if the results are as unprecedented as they all claim in their articles/websites?
Why is there a need to devise a procedure where the "rate of embarrassing and disabling compensatory sweating was significantly less..."?! Disabling? After an elective surgery? These terms did not enter the vocabulary of the previous ads of the ETS industry.
The surgeon claiming great success with his new "SUPER SELECTIVE ETS' also claimed excellent results with his old, non-super selective procedure... He did NOT mention his patients being disabled by his elective procedure or the need to devise a better procedure previously. His results were excellent then but they are not excellent in hindsight? How is that possible that unprecedented successes morph into disability?
"In this method, the main trunk of the sympathetic nerve are left intact, however, the rami communicanes which connect the sympathetic ganglia to the peripheral nerves are cut. In one study that compared the conventional ETS to the super-selective ETS, the overall rate of compensatory sweating was similar in both groups; however, the rate of embarrassing and disabling compensatory sweating was significantly less in the super-selective ETS. This further illustrates that the more selective the surgery is, the less chance of disabling compensatory sweating."
No comments:
Post a Comment