The Science of Cell Phones and Brain Tumors

The first cell phones hit the U.S. market in the 1980s. Almost immediately, consumer advocates raised questions about their potential to adversely affect users’ health over long periods of time. During the 1990s, as cell phones became cheaper and more reliable, the pitch and intensity of this questioning gained steam.

Now that cell phones and their powerful smartphone successors — which resemble the first bulky, functionally limited mobile phones about as much as 18th-century surgery, performed without antibiotics or reliable anesthesia, resembles modern neurosurgery — have become an integral part of our modern economic and social fabric, it’s hard to imagine turning back the clock and returning to a time without mobile technology. (You certainly wouldn’t be willing to undergo major surgery without antibiotics or anesthesia, and no ethical surgeon would agree to such a procedure anyway.)

But the questions continue — and they’re worth addressing. Here’s a look at the science behind the oft-repeated claim that cell phones cause brain tumors.

A Long-Term Rise in Tumor Incidence

According to the Mayo Clinic, providers have documented a small but statistically significant (and steady) rise in the incidence of benign and malignant head tumors since the 1970s. While this at first blush appears to correlate with the adoption of cellphones and other radiation-emitting electronics, it’s more likely that the correlation is incidental. The more likely explanation for the increase is a dramatic improvement in imaging technologies and diagnostic techniques.

However, there is enough uncertainty in the data to prompt legitimate questions and necessitate further investigation.

What Can Landmark Studies Tell Us?

During the more than three decades that cell phones have been in use — including the second half of that period, when cell phone use became commonplace — several highly regarded studies have shed some light on the correlation between radio-transmitting electronics and head/neck tumors. The most noteworthy include:

  • A small but statistically significant correlation between cell phone use and salivary gland tumors, though a small sample size and other complicating factors cast some doubt on the results’ applicability
  • A statistically weak correlation between heavy cell phone use and a specific type of brain tumor (glioma), but no general correlation between phone use and overall tumor incidence
  • A two-decade mega-survey of more than 400,000 cell phone users that found no statistically significant correlation between phone use and brain tumors

Benefits of Common Safety Devices and Regulations

It’s also worth noting that some authorities aren’t waiting for a consensus to emerge. The city of Berkeley, California, recently made headlines ( CNN) for enacting a strict law requiring cell phone vendors to inform consumers of existing federal regulations regarding cell phone emissions and provide detailed guidance on safe use (including safety equipment, such as hands-free devices and ear protection) — either by handing out a special pamphlet or displaying a sign in-store. While it’s unclear how or if this new local rule will change consumer behavior, there’s no denying that consumers remain suspicious of the ever-present cell phone.

Can Being Nice to Others Change Your Brain?

What goes around, comes around. Pay it forward. Nice guys finish first.

You are certain to find the perfect term or phrase to describe the perks of emotional positivity and personal generosity. There’s a lot to be said, literally, for being nice to others and treating your neighbors how you’d like to be treated.

But can being nice actually change your brain for the better? As we learn more about the brain, neurologists are taking a closer look at this provocative — and potentially paradigm-shifting — question. Here’s what we know so far.

  1. Kind or Selfless Acts Release Neurotransmitters Associated with Positive Emotion

Studies show that acts of kindness — no, they don’t have to be random — facilitate the release of neurotransmitters associated with positive emotion. In particular, the mood-boosting brain chemical serotonin and pleasure-promoting neurotransmitter dopamine appear in elevated levels after an act of selflessness. The mood boost associated with the kind act can last much longer than the act itself, though persistence is situational.

  1. Kindness Produces Healthier, More Fulfilling Relationships

People who behave selflessly or “do unto others” tend to have more fulfilling personal relationships: happier marriages, healthier parent-child interactions, and even more vibrant relationships with tangential acquaintances and coworkers. You’ve probably experienced an unexpected emotional bond over an act of kindness or selflessness, whether you initiated it or not. Perhaps some of your most fulfilling personal relationships have started or deepened this way.

  1. Kindness May Have Cardiovascular Benefits

Recent studies suggest that altruistic behavior may result in the release of oxytocin, a key inflammation-reducing chemical thought to promote heart health, in elevated levels. Over time, oxytocin reduces “wear and tear” on the heart muscle and cardiovascular system, potentially lowering risk for adverse cardiovascular events.

The Social Implications of the “Nice Brain” Theory

The correlation between selfless acts and positive emotional (and possibly physical) feedback has some provocative — but, it should be stressed, highly assumptive — implications.

For instance, the fact that our bodies appear to reward kindness suggests that humans and perhaps other primates and closely related mammals have evolved some sort of altruism reflex or imperative. As social creatures that evolved in response to some intense environmental pressures (notably rapid changes in climate patterns, which in turn affect food availability and habitat suitability), it makes intuitive sense that altruistic early human populations had better reproductive success relative to selfish ones. That said, more study is needed to determine the strength of this correlation and ascertain whether it’s present in other mammals.

Not Quite Settled

For laypeople, science can seem, well, illogical. In a media environment that increasingly rewards sensationalist stories, grabby headlines and “bite-sized” content, the painstaking and often incremental process of scientific discovery — backstopped by the venerable scientific method — is frustrating for information consumers who demand easy answers.

Then again, the goal of science is to address tough questions without obvious answers. And the discoveries that occur as a result of this process often provoke more questions than they answer. In this particular case, it’s not yet possible to say that being nice is always a boon for your brain. If and when the neurological community is able to say so for sure, you can bet that we’ll have a host of new questions to explore.

Do Electronic Devices Mess with Your Brain?

As you read these words, radiation — invisible waves of widely variable wavelengths — is bombarding every part of your body from every direction. It is passing through your head, neck, chest, abdomen and extremities at the speed of light. It comes in many different forms, from the natural light and ultraviolet radiation produced by the sun to the radio waves produced by now-ubiquitous terrestrial transmitters.

Freaked out yet?

We can’t stop the sun from emitting radiation, but we can control the myriad electronic devices that produce mostly long-wave (i.e., radio) radiation. Many consumer advocates and health professionals believe we should. But does the science support this? Put another way, do electronic devices really mess with our brains in a dangerous way?

Cancer Risks?

Consumer advocates continue to express concerns about the long-term cancer risks associated with some common transmitting devices, particularly cell phones and smartphones. However, it’s far from clear that these devices, which primarily emit long-wave radiation (radio waves), have any measurable impact on long-term cancer risk absent other variables.

Fortunately, consumer electronics don’t produce large amounts of short-wave radiation, such as X-rays and gamma rays. When it comes to long-term cancer risk (and, in high doses, acute short-term illness and death), short-wave radiation — such as X-rays and gamma rays (super short waves that mostly emanate from dying stars and other interstellar sources and can’t penetrate earth’s atmosphere in large quantities)— is exponentially more dangerous than radio waves emitted by transmitting devices. That’s why you’re required to wear a lead shield during an X-ray exam, for instance.

The Hidden Perils of Extended Screen Time

Radiation aside, consumer electronics may have more insidious risks. One that deserves special attention: the impact of extended “screen time” — engagement with screened devices, such as smartphones, tablets, televisions and laptops — on the emotional development of young children.

A study from Public Health England, reported at length in The Guardian, found that children who spent more time playing computer games (an obvious measure of screen time) scored lower on tests of physical and emotional well being than children who used screened devices sparingly. Although the study wasn’t peer-reviewed and had some important methodological shortcomings, it adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting screen time negatively impacts young children.

Sleep-Wake Impacts

Screened devices affect users of all ages in a related, equally insidious way. Visible light emissions from most screened devices concentrate at the blue end of the spectrum, mimicking the character of natural morning light. After dark, this can alter your body’s rhythms — telling the unconscious part of your brain that controls sleeping and waking that it’s time to get up, when it’s really time to go to bed. To minimize the negative effects of blue light exposure, some experts recommend curtailing screened device use in bed.

Can We Compartmentalize Our Digital Lives?

Our species hasn’t yet produced an evolutionary response to the digital revolution. Unfortunately, we are clearly hardwired to respond to our indispensible electronic devices in ways we never intended, creating a new challenge for our connected society.

Even if it’s not plausible for most adults to quit their smartphones cold turkey, there’s much to be said for limiting screen time, setting up “screen-free” zones in bedrooms and other places, and ensuring that children develop a healthy appreciation for non-electronic pursuits. Our collective health — and sanity — could depend on it.

Is Depression a Symptom of Parkinson’s Disease?

Parkinson’s disease is far more complex than we knew just 10 or 20 years ago. In fact, clinicians like John Gorecki MD, increasingly view Parkinson’s as a “family” of conditions — distinguishing discrete processes and symptoms formerly lumped together under the Parkinson’s aegis.

That said, Parkinson’s expansiveness doesn’t mean it’s difficult to diagnose. In fact, Parkinson’s and related conditions carry an array of symptoms that, taken together, support such a diagnosis. Neurologists and other clinicians involved in the diagnosis and evaluation of Parkinson’s patients are increasingly attentive to the presence of a particular symptom — depression — that could serve as an early indicator (or even future predictor) of Parkinson’s disease.

Classic Parkinson’s Disease Symptoms

Parkinson’s is a common condition: According to the Parkinson’s Disease Foundation, more than 60,000 Americans are diagnosed with PD every year, and as many as 10 million people worldwide are afflicted at any given time. Given the disease’s chronic nature, long duration and often striking presentation, it’s no surprise that many “classic” Parkinson’s symptoms are widely recognized and understood. Some such symptoms include:

  • Tremor, particularly in the hands and fingers
  • Slow movements and rigid muscles
  • Impaired posture and speech
  • Cognitive impairment (dementia)
  • Sexual dysfunction and bladder control issues
  • Sleep problems
  • Swallowing problems and constipation

These symptoms arise and become more noticeable as the disease progresses.

Depression and Parkinson’s Disease

Depression is not a “classic” Parkinson’s disease symptom. In fact, it’s arguably the least-known and most often overlooked symptom. Nevertheless, the Parkinson’s Disease Foundation reports that as many as 60 percent of those diagnosed with Parkinson’s experience “mild or moderate depressive symptoms” at some point during the disease’s progression.

Parkinson’s-related depression may occur at any point, sometimes the patient has been formally diagnosed. It’s a physical process caused by disease-related changes to the brain, specifically the area responsible for producing the mood-regulating chemical serotonin and the frontal lobe, which is responsible for regulating higher-level brain functions like mood and impulse control. Parkinson’s patients typically have under-active frontal lobes and lower levels of serotonin than non-Parkinsonian peers.

Parkinson’s-related depression can affect the overall progression of the disease as well as the quality of life of those afflicted. In particular, depressive Parkinson’s patients report lower levels of satisfaction with everyday tasks, find such tasks more difficult, and (on average) begin chemical treatment for Parkinson’s-related motor symptoms earlier than patients without symptoms of depression.

Pharmaceutical Treatment and Cognitive Therapy

Like many other presentations of depression, Parkinson’s-related depression is treatable with commonly prescribed pharmaceuticals. There’s also evidence that cognitive behavioral therapy, used in conjunction with or independently of pharmaceutical treatment, may ameliorate symptoms and improve quality of life. In fact, patients who take steps to treat their depression symptoms may notice an improvement in their motor and cognitive symptoms as well.

More to Learn About Parkinson’s Disease

It is now clear that there’s a link between depression and Parkinson’s disease. Given the complexity of the family of conditions known as “PD,” it is also a foregone conclusion that other links and correlations will emerge in the years to come. Such discoveries will teach us more about Parkinson’s and related conditions — and could provide some measure of hope (or at least set reasonable expectations) for Parkinson’s sufferers and their families.

5 Recent Neurosurgery Advances That Improve Patient Outcomes

Neurosurgery is bathed in a mystique that, while perhaps beneficial to the typical neurosurgeon’s ego, does little to advance a critical field or enhance potential patients’ understanding of its present status, limitations and capabilities. With that in mind, this list of five recent neurosurgery advances that may legitimately improve patient outcomes (or, in some cases, have already done so) is useful reading for anyone who wishes to learn more about the discipline.

  1. Gamma Knife Surgery

Gamma Knife surgery is a form of radiosurgery that utilizes focused beams of radiation to target a small abnormality within the brain. The technique is typically used to treat brain tumors and arterio-venous abnormalities for which open surgical intervention is not optimal or practical. The key innovation of Gamma Knife is its ability to target very specific areas without harming neighboring tissues. This powerful result is achieved with about 200 small beams of radiation that, taken by themselves, have almost no effect on the tissue that they pass through. The point at which they meet, however, receives a meaningful dose of radiation that can shrink tumors and/or treat potentially harmful abnormalities.

  1. Cyberknife Surgery

Cyberknife is a robotic surgery system that, similar to Gamma Knife surgery, utilizes the basic principles of targeted radiosurgery to achieve clinically meaningful results with fewer complications and improved patient outcomes. The Cyberknife uses a linear particle accelerator that can be directed at any area of the body and targets focused anomalies without harming intervening tissues. The robotic component provides critical stability and control, further minimizing the risk of complications.

  1. Physician-in-Training Assists

Historically, experienced clinicians have worried about the presence of inexperienced physicians-in-training in the operating room. While physicians-in-training provide critical assist functions and play important support roles during complex surgery, their presence is often viewed as a distraction or, worse, active impediment to favorable outcomes. New research puts this theory to rest: An exhaustive study by Johns Hopkins found no uptick in rates of complications or death when physicians-in-training are present in the operating room.

  1. Optical Coherence Tomography

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a groundbreaking imaging technology that dramatically improves clinicians’ ability to identify neurological structures and diagnose specific disorders with a high level of confidence. It is the latest in a series of technological breakthroughs, complementing functional MRI, CT and PET imaging techniques. Though outcomes vary depending on numerous factors, including clinician competency, OCT is substantially less time-consuming than MRI work.

OCT is particularly promising for cancer diagnosis, where it is critical to distinguish healthy from cancerous tissue with high degrees of specificity. Its ability to produce color-coded maps leads directly to superior surgical outcomes, as surgeons using OCT are better able to achieve clear margins without unnecessarily removing healthy tissue.

  1. Stereotactic Neurosurgery

Stereotactic surgery applies a simple concept to a formidably complex activity: minimally invasive neurosurgery. Using a three-dimensional coordinate system that accurately maps the neurological environment, stereotactic neurosurgeons can pinpoint tiny targets within the brain and central nervous system at a stunning level of accuracy. Stereotactic techniques can be used to identify areas for virtually any time of surgical intervention, including Gamma Knife radiosurgery, biopsy and ablation.

Outcome Based Medicine: Definition & Hidden Perils

The concept of outcome-based medicine is increasingly viewed as critical to the future of the American healthcare system. Outcome-based medicine featured prominently in the debate surrounding the drafting and implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and continues to play a role in discussions of healthcare policy in health systems and among local, state, and federal government bodies. Patients and providers alike would do well to review the concept, its benefits and potential perils that could counteract any perceived advantages.

What Is Outcome-Based Medicine?

Outcome-based medicine is as it sounds: a system of medical care delivery that emphasizes positive patient outcomes. In the United States, outcome-based medicine further describes a payment model in which providers are purportedly compensated in a manner that incentivizes quality care delivery and positive patient outcomes, rather than providing flat payments for services rendered (the status-quo arrangement for U.S. healthcare).

It is important to note that outcome-based medicine is not evidence-based medicine, which describes a clinical approach rather than a reimbursement system. Evidence-based medicine is widely regarded as a best practice for medical providers across the specialty spectrum and is not a subject of serious debate within the community.

Perceived Benefits

Though some may seem obvious, the perceived benefits of outcome-based medicine bear repeating:

  • Improved patient quality of life
  • Fewer compensatory interventions aimed at rectifying negative outcomes
  • Enhanced trust between patients and providers (i.e. patients do not assume that doctors are simply rendering services to pad billings)
  • More emphasis on preventive care and minimally invasive interventions

Hidden Perils

It is worth exploring the hidden perils of outcome-based medicine as well. In many cases, and perhaps in systematic fashion, these perils may outweigh any perceived or real benefits of an outcome-based approach.

In particular, outcome-based medicine raises a substantial moral hazard. Providers are not omniscient and can’t know to any degree of certainty — other than what they can directly observe in a clinical setting — what their patients are doing when they’re not being monitored.

This is particularly problematic for patients whose recommended treatment courses require proactive (or simply active) work on the part of the patient. For instance, a patient who fails to take a necessary medication and subsequently suffers an adverse outcome may indirectly affect his or her provider’s reputation and income through no direct fault of the provider.

As of yet, there is no systematic answer for this moral hazard. Given what we know about human nature, it seems unlikely that one will arise in the foreseeable future. This, in a nutshell, is the Achilles’ heel of outcome-based medicine — and an indication that, at minimum, the medical community must carefully weigh the obvious need for positive outcomes against the potential risks of blithe adherence to a particular compensation framework. There is a significant risk that patients with lower income and more complex problems will be discriminated against and lose access to care.

A Changing Medical Landscape
The platitude “the only constant is change itself” applies perfectly to the concept of outcome-based medicine. Even the most astute and well-prepared observers remain unsure as to how the concept will develop and change in response to new governmental directives, changing modes of care and other factors — some of which may be unknown to us at present. That said, patients and providers must prepare themselves mentally and professionally for a future in which medical care looks very different — and produces very different results — than it does currently.

Parkinson’s disease Treatment and Management Options

Parkinson’s disease is a common neurological disorder with which many Americans are familiar, if not personally knowledgeable because of family members. The disorder is given substantial visibility by afflicted celebrities, including Muhammad Ali and Michael J. Fox, as well as by its relatively common occurrence and striking symptoms.

Parkinson’s disease is a complex disorder for which current treatments focus largely on symptom management. It remains frustratingly resistant to wholesale control and intervention. That said, ongoing research and clinical work is pushing the bounds of our understanding of and relationship with Parkinson’s disease. Let’s take a look at what we know about the disease and its prevention, management and potential interventions.

What Is Parkinson’s disease?

Parkinson’s is a progressive disorder marked by symptoms that worsen over a period of years or decades. Symptoms typically present after the age of 50, though “young onset” Parkinson’s is also recognised. Symptoms present in several distinct forms:

  • Movement-related issues, such as shaking, rigidity, slowness, and difficulty walking or talking
  • Behavioral problems
  • Cognitive problems, including dementia in later stages of the disease
  • Depression or other psychological issues

Potential Preventive Measures

The research around Parkinson’s prevention is mixed at best. Many studies or areas of inquiry have been contradictory and inconclusive. Hard-and-fast claims that “X prevents or reduces the risk of Parkinson’s” should be taken with a sizable grain of salt.

That said, two of the most promising areas of inquiry involve common stimulants: caffeine and nicotine. Caffeine studies have shown a statistically significant reduction (>30% at >95% confidence) in Parkinson’s incidence among otherwise healthy individuals who consume large amounts of coffee. (It’s not at all clear whether caffeine, another substance, or a combination of substances found in coffee contribute to this effect.)

Somewhat less conclusive studies suggest that tobacco users, and specifically tobacco smokers, develop Parkinson’s at lower rates than non-smokers. However, whatever preventive effect tobacco use may have with regards to Parkinson’s should not be construed to outweigh the myriad well-known adverse effects of smoking.

Drug Management

Depending on the disease stage and symptom progression, various classes of drugs are suitable for managing Parkinson’s symptoms and complications. These include:

  • Sinemet–Levodopa/carbidopa
  • Dopamine Agonists Requip Mirapex Neupro
  • Symmetrel—-increases amount of dopamine available for brain
  • Anticholinergics Artane Cogentin
  • Eldypryl and Azilect MAO-B inhibitors help conserve the amount of dopamine
  • COMT inhibitors—-Tasmar,  Comtan     dopamine is retained

Surgery and Other Interventions

One particularly promising area of Parkinson’s management is deep brain stimulation (DBS), a technique pioneered by Dr. Louis Benabid and others in the 1980s and 1990s, and performed by Dr. John Gorecki, MD. DBS uses a device commonly known as a “brain pacemaker” to stimulate the thalamus, subthalamic nucleus or globus pallidus and control the common motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease.

Looking Ahead

So far Parkinson’s disease cannot be “cured” like syphilis, tuberculosis or other once-devastating bacterial infections. For the foreseeable future, Parkinson’s treatment will focus on the  management of symptoms. But that should not lead anyone to despair. The progress of research is slow, however, so much more can be offered to patients today compared to 40 years ago or even 10 years ago. For those of us who know someone who suffers from the disease or who worry about developing Parkinson’s, it is an exciting time to be involved in research and treatment, and that elusive breakthrough may yet materialize on the horizon.

A Brief Overview of Epilepsy Morbidity, Presentation & Treatment

Epilepsy is a serious disorder that affects people of all ages and varies widely in its presentation. Unfortunately, a considerable amount of misinformation and stigma continues to surround epilepsy patients and clouds our collective understanding of the disorder’s morbidity and treatment.

Whether you are a parent looking to learn more about treatment options for your children or an aspiring medical professional like John Gorecki MD, looking to separate the facts from the spin, it is worth taking some time to study epilepsy. What follows is a high-level look at epilepsy that, properly used, can serve as the basis for further research and understanding.

An Ancient Disorder

Epilepsy’s ancient pedigree is evident in its name: “Epilepsy” is an ancient Greek word that roughly translates as “to seize” or “to possess.” As one might expect, the ancient world’s relationship with epilepsy was very different from our modern conception of the disorder. Epilepsy and its most obvious symptom — epileptic seizures — were largely seen as a supernatural affliction signifying some sort of imbalance in the universe. Sufferers were often actively ostracized or even subjected to violent persecution, though records of how systematic and widespread such treatment was are difficult to come by.

Presentation and Morbidity

As one of the first widely recognized and diagnosed neurological afflictions, epilepsy has been studied with some rigor for hundreds of years. Epileptic seizures are classified as idiopathic or secondary. Idiopathic seizures have no identified underlying cause or abnormality seen on MRI. Secondary seizures have an underlying cause such as scar or tumor and are also described as lesional seizures.

Epileptic seizures vary in duration and intensity, with more severe seizures involving a substantial risk of aspiration and other potentially life-threatening complications. Causes vary widely; some patients evidence a genetic predisposition, while others appear to develop symptoms after sustaining a neurological injury.

Treatment Options for Patients of All Ages

Separately from acute interventions designed to minimize serious or life-threatening side effects, epilepsy treatment options include:

  • Medication (beneficial in about 70% of cases)
  • Standard or minimally invasive (stereotactic) surgery
  • Neurologic stimulation (various nerve centers, vagal nerve stimulation)
  • Ketogenic diet (high-fat, low-carbohydrate, adequate-protein)
  • Removal of indirect triggers, such as rapid-frame blue light

Cutting-Edge Research May Hold New Promise

There are several promising avenues for epilepsy research, some of which may soon result in new treatments or intervention options. In particular, minimally invasive stereotactic surgery appears to have similar or even superior outcomes to standard surgery without the attendant risks and long-term effects of more invasive interventions. Additionally, EEGs are being used with increasing accuracy to predict seizures and pinpoint their source, though no systematic prediction scheme has yet been achieved.

It is clear that the final chapter in the story of epilepsy has yet to be written. However, our understanding of this affliction is more complete and nuanced than at any time in history. As such, the future for the treatment and management of epilepsy looks brighter than ever before. That is certainly hopeful news for millions of epilepsy sufferers around the world.

John Gorecki MD: A Patient Advocate in the Surgical Suite

Dr. John Gorecki MD, is an accomplished neurosurgeon with more than 25 years of experience in and out of the surgical suite. His CV is legitimately impressive: After receiving a medical degree from Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, he successfully completed a rigorous surgical internship at Saint Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, followed by a first-rate residency at the University of Toronto, Canada. At the University of Toronto, he received advanced training in stereotactic and functional neurosurgery, earning the respect and admiration of his peers. Following residency, he obtained board certification in both Canada and the United States.

Dr. Gorecki is not content to let his resume speak for itself, however. In clinical settings, he differentiates himself from his peers with his empathetic, caring bedside manner.

“I strongly believe that the surgeon-patient relationship is a collaborative one,” says John Gorecki MD. “I come to every patient interaction with a humble heart and open mind.”

In fact, regardless of whether a case involves surgery, Dr. John Gorecki is committed to providing each of his patients with a high standard of neurosurgical advice and care to facilitate optimal results and a meaningful quality of life.

Over the years, he has developed a strong patient base through his considerable expertise with various spinal disorders and consistent track record of positive patient outcomes. Dr. Gorecki’s advanced skills in the surgical suite and caring manner prompt patients to travel a considerable distance to consult with him; his north Georgia clinic counts patients from across the Atlanta metro region and several surrounding states.

Patients also appreciate John Gorecki MD’s versatile skill set and fundamentally conservative medical philosophy. His core competencies include a wide range of treatment options for all disorders of the brain and spine, stereotactic surgery, deep brain stimulation for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, movement disorders, and tremor. He has also has substantial experience in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia, including specialized training and expertise with Gamma Knife and Cyberknife radiosurgery — two increasingly common, minimally invasive techniques that set Dr. Gorecki apart from the vast majority of his neurosurgery colleagues. Also, John Gorecki MD has extensive practice treating benign and malignant brain tumors and acoustic neuromas, as well as the ability to perform transnasal endoscopic pituitary surgery in collaboration with ENT specialists.

Although Dr. Gorecki currently serves patients at a private clinic in Buford, Georgia, and enjoys admitting privileges with a top-rated local health system, he is also proud of his academic pedigree. His patients value his rigor as well, particularly his post-residency work at the University of Mississippi School of Medicine and Duke University Medical Center. What’s more, his leadership experience — particularly his work as chief of neurosurgery with Via Christi Health and director of Gamma Knife surgery at Wesley Medical Center — instills confidence and courage in his patients.

Choosing a surgeon is a weighty task in any situation. Dr. John Gorecki MD is committed to making that choice a bit easier for each of his valued patients.