GenericUsername wrote:
vitalsign0 wrote:

That's the problem with whattodozel's doctor. He is great at emailing before the surgery when he is trying to sell you on the idea of getting one. Basically stating a vitrectomy is no big deal and he hasn't had any major complications in 20 years. Then a patient, zel in this case, loses his vision in the operated eye and it is now a challenge to get a hold of him on the phone or email. When contact is made very little information is given and the whole situation is dismissed. 


Sadly I'm starting to agree with this assessment. I think it's great that he's so willing to perform FOV. But he does seem overly dismissive of the risks.
I absolutely agree.

I also eould like to point out how, when he wasn't PVDing his FOVs, he said chances of retinal tears were about 1% or so, and he wouldn't induce it because that risk would spike up to...10%? inducing it? (IIRC the percentages, but anyway you get what I mean).

Now, he induces PVD, but he still seems to "sell" the very rare occurrence of complications (it goes without saying, though, they will be at least slightly higher with his new method).

I also didn't like how he discussed in his blog the complications that happened to his previous FOV about a year ago (Complete other Wong FOV story)... he seemed to repeat "it's important that I engage transparency about complications to show I am an 'open' doctor" rather than "it's important that I discuss this case to show empathy to someone who became basically permanently disabled overnight".

I second G.U. 's thought. My gut feeling is I don't trust him either at all.

Regards and sorry for any mistakes, as English is not my main language (Italian here).

Just wanted to share my 2 cents.

Be strong all.