Rating Feedback for Dr. Filler (1504617)
These procedures have good to excellent results - meaning complete relief in about 85% of patients based on large scale formal outcome data across hundreds of patients. These are formal peer reviewed results. In many health systems 100% of patients with these problems are simply not treated or administered increasing amounts of narcotics with little effect. An 85% success rate across hundreds of patients guarantees that there are thirty or forty patients I have operated on who have not improved. I am committed, with these people to working on determining why the pain persists, and in many cases we have found co-exisiting problems, like auto-immune neuritis or other unusual medical problems that hinder improvement and that we have then treated successfully.
I certainly wish we had guaranteed 100% total success, but nothing in medicine works that way. Full information is available through our web site:
Of course it is difficult to know if the person writing this is a competing physician or an actual patient as there is no registration or verification required on this web site for posters. This is unfortunate if people are making major health choices based on a website that will not even verify the identity of the people posting - even by verifying confidentially for the web master and managers themselves. The complete failure to meet the standards of the doctor rating web system is what makes Rate MD's so attractive to unreliable raters.
The assessment of 1/5 on knowledgeability is a red flag. I'm the editor of the major neurosurgery textbook in this field, have published and lectured extensively at medical meetings, served on the faculty of UCLA and taught for years at Harvard. My inventions in this field are used at hundreds of medical centers around the world. I can see the person indicating that they didn't improve, but the 1/5 on knowledge is clearly not a reasonable fair assessment - entertaining though it may be.