Teo has no regrets over controversial brain surgeries

Star neurosurgeon Charlie Teo says he doesn't regret performing brain surgeries that left two women with catastrophic injuries and resulted in his conduct being investigated by health authorities.

Neither of the patients recovered from the surgery but Dr Teo said he was acting in their best interests by attempting the operations and suggested complaints were prompted from within the medical system.

"I did it in their best interest, thinking it was going to help them - it didn't," he told reporters on Wednesday.

Dr Teo was restrained by the NSW Medical Council in August 2021 from operating without the approval of another doctor after an investigation by the state's Health Care Complaints Commission.

The 65-year-old is famous for performing neurosurgery on cancer patients with tumours other doctors have deemed inoperable, but he has been accused of charging exorbitant fees and offering some patients false hope.

Dr Teo said he did not charge a fee for one of the operations being investigated and denied he was selfish to attempt the surgeries.

"They're just trying to paint me to be some sort of money-hungry, reckless, non-compassionate doctor - I'm not. I just love my work. I love my patients," he said.

"I'm not trying to deny that complications happen. They do."

Neurosurgeons Andrew Morokoff and Bryant Stokes appeared as expert witnesses before the commission on Wednesday.

Both men described Dr Teo as a skilled surgeon, but agreed the risks of morbidity or death from performing a radical tumour removal on one of his patients far "outweighed" the possible benefits. 

Associate Professor Morokoff told the hearing that according to medical literature and guidelines there were no apparent benefits to the surgery Dr Teo intended to perform.

Dr Teo completed the surgery in just one-and-a-half hours, which the experts agreed was unusually quick.

"It was too quick in my view, but he's a very slick surgeon. It would have taken me about four hours to do that surgery," said Professor Stokes, who taught Dr Teo as a student.

Dr Teo said the question of whether the medical fraternity has been too cautious in some of the cancers they take on was twofold.

"Firstly, you don't want someone to take on a difficult case if they don't have the skills to do it," he said.

"And secondly, you don't want someone to reject a case if they do have the skills."

A week-long commission hearing in Sydney has so far heard from family members of two female patients, one from WA and another from Melbourne, who claim among other things they weren't sufficiently informed of the risks involved with the surgery.

But Dr Teo said he previously had a good relationship with the husbands of the patients and they had been "coerced" into making complaints by other doctors.