Menu
Login
Duke University Hospital And Eye Center.
Is so wrong for the ''BLACK MARKET'' use of silicone oil for retina detachment by Dr. Maurice B Landers III in 1984.
No silicone/ or silicone oil was approved to be used in the United States by the FDA in 1984.
So the use of silicone oil could not be used as ''OFF LABEL''.
I spoke with Michael Steven Tekely on 09/28/2010 concerning that around 01/1984 Dr. Maurice B. Landers III injected my blind left eye with silicone oil and used a sclera buckle for retina detachment.
A sclera buckle is only recommended to be left for a very short time. Because it will cause decompression, And deformity if left too long.
I had another surgery at Duke on 04/1984 to have the silicone oil removed.
Dr. Maurice B.Landers III wrote a book which was published in 1985. In his book he recommended not using silicone oil for the purpose of retina detachment, He stated the ''RISK OUT WEIGHS THE BENEFIT.
In 1984 he could not tell us what those risks were, Either because he didn't know what the risks were, Or he hid the risks from us, Figuring we would not have such surgery. I thought for years that the silicone oil was removed after reading my records from duke.
But during a surgery I had on 09/16/2010, I learned the doctor who did my surgery said she had to remove silicone oil from my eye, She said it took for ever to removed the silicone oil, Because it was thick like honey.
She also discovered and removed 2 pieces of white foam that was left in my eye from Dr. Maurice B. Landers III who was paid eye surgeon of Duke University, And also a professor.
Michael S Tekely was very interested about the lab report concerning the finding of 2 foreign bodies that was left in my left eye.
He ask me to send him the lab report and surgical report concerning the findings, He said after he reviews the report, He said if the report mentions 2 pieces of foam was removed, That Duke University would compensate me for such findings.
I submitted this information too Michael S Tekely on 10/07/2010.
I again spoke to Michael on 10/11/2010 asking him about the information I submitted to him.
He said that he has not looked at the info yet.
Than I received a letter from he, It was dated 10/08/2010. He said that he didn't see anywhere in the surgical report where the doctor removed silicone oil. I told him that he must have not read the whole report, Because I can highlight it if he is having trouble seeing it. Or he just purposely lying too me.
He also did not mention anything about the 2 pieces of foam thats on the lab report.
Almost the whole lab report mentions 2 pieces of white foam was submitted for review.
Michael only mentioned sclera buckle was placed.
Sclera buckle is not white foam, And it is not placed on the inside of the eye.
A sclera buckle is like a rubber band that is sewn on the outside of the eye it is tighten to compress the eye. Example would be like blowing up a balloon and pinching it closed in the middle, This is some what like a sclera buckle, And again its not meant to be left for a long period of time.
Also the long term side effects of silicone oil, Is Glaumoma, Cataracts, High pressure pain from the optic nerve due too glaumoma.
Inflammation, Deformity of the eye, Eye shrinkage.
Damage to the cornea etc.
Their are also the danger of silicone oil leaking into the optic nerve, And into the blood.
Which can cause joint pain etc.
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
As the apparent "target" of this patient's dissatisfaction, I am compelled to mention that this patient previously dealt with (2) other clinical risk managers who denied his claim. I just happened to be the (un)fortunate individual who he "cornered" yet a third time. He had an acute penetrating eye injury in 1984 when he was a minor. The damage to his eye, as he details above, was so severe there were no known procedures, at the time, or therapies that would have/could have prevented him from losing his vision in that eye. The patient's parents were consulted and consented to an experimental procedure using silicone and they were made aware of all of the risks to include; complete loss of vision, which at the time of this entire ordeal was the prognosis if nothing had been done. It was an unfortunate event and set of circumstances, but again this patient had already been informed twice, by other risk managers, of the same conclusion I reached and conveyed.