Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video

Reply to Duane E.

Posted by Rob on 4/23/00 at 00:00 (019279)

I am not in sales Duane. I am clinical applications and it is my job to present the doctors information that has been accepted by their peers and to inform them of any new developments I come across in my travels. Once again I am not being condenscending to the competitors that share their knowledge on this site. On the contrary, I am forcing a debate that has been accepted by the doctors I consult with that all the variables are meaningless if the success rate does not back up the OEM's claims. I have not said anything pro or con about any OEM, my debate is with you and the fault of your reasoning that is not only your mistake but a mistake that has been made by many people for a long time. If you consult a doctor who has used this technology for urology or orthpeadics you will find that most don't care about the shock source or which of the big companys makes the device, they want to see results and I can't seem to get that point across here. If a doctor uses a device that has a 90% success rate and an OEM that claims to have more power only gets an 80% success rate then the doctor almost always will go for the device with the better success rate. We are not talking brand loyalty or cost, just the end product of what this is all about, results. When I do demos with lithotripters I find that if the demo goes well the doctor will use the device and if it does not then they will use a device that they have seen work better. The engineering has little to do with their decision process and it SHOULD NOT. All this data is smoke and mirrors that distract the doctor from what is important, success. I will not continue this debate further since I am running in circles at this point. I only hope you understand that doctors treat people with the idea being to heal them, they are not in their garage building these machines and niether are their patients.
Posted to the eswt board

Re: Reply to Duane E.

Duane E on 4/23/00 at 00:00 (019290)

After reading this post, I think if you re-read all my posts in this thread, it sounds like we are in close agreement on all the critical issues.

The real point that began this thread was a desire to discover how Dr. Zuckerman's ESWT procedure differs from the way others practice ESWT. Back in February, he said that he set the Orbasone to 18KV or 22KV; but he did not know the energy level or focal size those settings produced. Now he says that he does know, and will not share it with the board.

I am quite pleased that you are on the board. The more people that work in this field that participate on this board, the more benefit to patients.

Posted to the eswt board

Re: Reply to Duane E.

Duane E on 4/23/00 at 00:00 (019290)

After reading this post, I think if you re-read all my posts in this thread, it sounds like we are in close agreement on all the critical issues.

The real point that began this thread was a desire to discover how Dr. Zuckerman's ESWT procedure differs from the way others practice ESWT. Back in February, he said that he set the Orbasone to 18KV or 22KV; but he did not know the energy level or focal size those settings produced. Now he says that he does know, and will not share it with the board.

I am quite pleased that you are on the board. The more people that work in this field that participate on this board, the more benefit to patients.

Posted to the eswt board