cr250bronco wrote:

Mmpfus wrote:

kreeper22 wrote:
Because in general they are very effective. Yes, surgery is supposed to be a last resort.

It is "effective" in the same way that amputating an arm is "effective" at curing a hangnail.  It is performed because ENTs are stupid and greedy.


"Inferior turbinate (lining of nose) surgery is a commonly performed procedure in ENT as shrinking the lining may reduce some of the symptoms of allergic rhinitis, particularly nose blockage. This procedure is carried out using a multitude of techniques...Research, in the form of properly conducted trials comparing various techniques and assessing long-term results and complications, has not yet been done in this field. We therefore conclude that the evidence in the literature is not robust enough about the usefulness of surgery using any technique for this condition." (emphasis mine)
http://www.cochrane.org/CD005235/ENT_surgery-to-the-inferior-turbinate-lining-of-the-nose-in-order-to-relieve-nose-block-in-allergic-rhinitis-after-failed-medical-treatment

This! How is it that medicine can't be prescribed until undergoing rigourous trials, but these surgeons have a full green light to do whatevery they want?  Where is the accountability there?  I get it in a life saving ER not all senarios can be accounted for in the literature.  But espically with an elective procedure there should be some legal requirements for it's safety, i.e. double blind long term studies....

brett described them as a salesmen in a long white jacket. I think my surgeon slipped the turbinectomy in there for more insurance money. how else do ENTs make money?