Davidg, you said, "I'm not even sure why they're referred to as "celebrity docs". They don't aspire to be celebrities, they have been recruited by the best centers for their skills and reputation and are passionate about helping people.
In regard to your surgeon (Dr. Samadi), I woud use the term"celebrity doc" because I see him about once a week on Fox New or the Today Show or elesewhere. I would argue that he definitely basks in the celebrity lifestyle. He has cultivated a national reputation, and I don't know what else to call that but "celebrity." I frequently end up annoyed with his commentary because he's only about surgery. I've never heard him mention seeds, external beam radiation, proton therapy, or any of the other possible treatments that might be appropriate in specific cases. And just last week I saw him again promising that today's prostate surgery virtually eliminates worries about incontinence or erectile dysfuntion. Pardon me, but I say, "B.S."!
I know things have worked out well for you, and I'm happy for you I also had an exellent outcome with a very low volume surgeon, as my stats will show. My continuing ED is certainly explainable by the loss of a nerve bundle and being nearly 66 years old. If I had gone in with your stats, at your age, and in your physical condition (which I had at age 40), my low-volume, not famous surgeon would have almost certainly had equal success as far as ED goes. I seriously doubt that any of the big-name doctors could have saved that nerve bundle without risking a recurrence of cancer.
No one has had much to say about the interpretation of the pathology slides. Am I wrong in understanding that the Gleason 4's and 5's look so different from other cells that they're relativey easy to read, while it's the lower grades that are difficult to distinguish from one another? If that's correct (and correct me, please, if it's wrong), then isn't it unlikely that any competent pathologist would miss the high-grade cancers?
Also, if the super-surgeons and super-readers of slides know things that the majority of docs don't know (e.g., Dr. Samadi always references a certain specific technique that he perfected), why don't they share those secrets with the medical community? Maybe they do, but they seem proprietary about these things.
I appreciate that some surgeons have a higher level of surgical skill than others, just as space shuttle commanders probably have varying degrees of aeronautical skills, but just as the shuttle commanders are all outstanding pilots, I tend to hope that the bar is set so high for urologic surgeons that all but the very weakest of surgeons are capable of doing consistently excellent work, and until I can see some objective proof to the contrary, I guess I'll keep believing that.
Post Edited (clocknut) : 5/18/2011 10:31:54 AM (GMT-6)