Hi,
It has been two years since my operation and my chest is deformed thanks to this op.
I wish I had either.
a) not bothered, I would take my shirt off at a push before but not any more. What's worse than gyne? A butchered gyne operation that looks un-natural.
b) went with levick or karidis. Unfortunately I wanted it as soon as I could and read glowing reports of a few on here which I am now very suspicious of.
The problem is she took far too much fat out of one side and the other, but left the right side with remaining gland above the over lipo'd lower area. I'm lop sided and creased to hell. I still get pains in and around my chest 2+ years on. excellent.
The "drain" scars are still very evident too, what dr puts in drains then takes them straight out. Then asks you to remove the fluid build up yourself with a needle? This isn't just me the other lad who had his done at the same time had exactly the same and bad results too.
The place was clean but Jeremy came across as a cowboy desperate for money at times. The ultrasound place was a new place they were using, and they were bickering with staff when I was there. Great.
I have since been to see karadis to see if anything can be done, he is not sure. This has depressed me for the last two years and dare I say it ruined many things for me.
Word to the wise be careful! pay for the best you can afford even if you have to wait do not make the same mistake I did.
They also told me oh wait 12 months for a final result etc etc. it is now over 2 years. look in the uk section and see how most look after a few months!
She is a nice person but I wish I had never went there for my op.
Hi Betteroffbefore,
That is sad to hear. I worked as a systems analyst in group health for most of my working life. Results can vary tremendously by who does a surgery. Some are simply far superior to others for all sorts of reasons and sometimes even the best have less than great results. With so relatively few of these surgeries done it is difficult to get a good feel for what the outcomes curve looks like.
One can assume that for any given doc there is a curve going from total horror show to poor, fair, good, excellent and really great.
At what percentage risk of unfavorable outcome would you have said "no"; 1%? 5%? 20%? 50%?.
As the judgement here is not only on medical outcomes but on aesthetic outcomes, it's possible to have an absolutely perfect surgery and healing with an outcome the patient hadn't pictured as aesthetically satisfying.
Within my immediate family for surgeries of multiple varieties over 65 years out of perhaps 15 procedures there was one horror show (the most recent surgery), one pretty bad, 4 or 5 that didn't go as expected, speed bumps as it were, things worked out in the end but aesthetics were not a consideration and the way was much rougher than expected, and the rest were "routine" and worked out as well or in a couple of surgeries, better, than expected. These were all done by board certified specialists and sub specialty surgeons, selected carefully by people all in one part of the medical business or another including MDs, hospital administrator, consultants, HMO General manager and sitting on the Ambulatory Care standards committee of the Hospital Accreditation board. If we as individuals and group got this type of results, what kind can the person off the street have?
So, has my family been the subject of a lot of bad selection of surgeons or did we get a pretty typical results or did we get better than average results? There were no doctors we went to for whom we had all the info as in being able to review 10 years of claims by any of them. They were not in the groups we consulted for so we had no actual inside information.
Even if surgery might be a good risk for me (it isn't), past family experience indicates to me that completely satisfactory outcomes are likely less than half the time, and with aesthetics thrown in probably less than that.
I have seen, as a nudist, lots of women post breast surgery. One woman who had a breast reduction had such a poor butcher job aesthetically that she ended up with something like PTSD and will NEVER show her breasts in a locker room much less skinny dipping.
On the breast reconstructions after cancer surgery, some are done pretty well, NONE of them look natural from across the pool much less up close and personal. And then of course there are the scars. A modest number choose no reconstruction at all and they appear more comfortable that way than with a poor reconstruction.
At a nudist club nobody really notices natural breasts, male or female. They are all over the place. However, private comments like "Oh that poor woman with such a poor reconstruction" and similar things about a lot of scars are made, and even discussed amongst friends, surgeons compared and all that. It's like any other group playing games like "Operation" and "mine is worse than yours, such a doctor...".
With a pair of D-cups, I have overheard one remark in a nudist situation "It must be a glandular problem" in 45 years. It wasn't a problem. It's an obvious truth. It didn't matter to the elderly couple, his wife was explaining it to her hard of hearing hubby.
A botched operation would be seen and ignored as well, but is much more noticeable.
Best of luck in getting things corrected.
Topic: Dr K. O. Clark Bad experience here (Read 5382 times)
Similar Topics
