There is a tendency to look at NA and OS as one *verses* the other. That's only because the current conservative medical establishment has been doing OS for so long they can't see the forest for the trees. It's "OS Only" for most of them. That's why, after we are told we "must" have Open Surgery we look at NA as the "opposing" procedure. That should not necessarily be our attitude. The Us Vs Them mentality only creates more of a divide.

The actual reality is that NA is the *starting* point in surgical correction of Dups. If NA is not effective you consider moving up to OS. It's like a tune up for your car as opposed to rebuilding it. If continued tune-ups are all you need as long as you own the car (lifetime), then that's all you do. If what you really need is to pull the head and do a valve job or rebuild, then that is what you must do.

There is nothing to loose by trying NA before you sign up for the whole enchilada. It's not one Vs the other. It's all a matter of what is the least invasive/expensive to get the job done. OS has it's place.......*after* NA has failed, which is probably less than 50% of the time.

These videos are helpful for us to see what really goes on, and that NA is highly effective while fairly simple.

Sandie,

You may or may not be aware of this history:

This whole thing got started over seven years ago on the BioS Forum when some of the posters reported on the NA they'd had in France. There was a surprising amount of resistance to the idea of NA even from *patients* back then. We have recorded most of the posts from that period under "Forum Archive 1" which goes back as far as 1999. Example:

http://www.dupuytren-online.info/Forum_E...nces-3_101.html

We spent a few years debating such things as the risk of nerve damage and recurrence as they pertained to OS and NA. It wasn't until Charles Eaton learned of NA through that Forum that things began to take off. Then, with a growing list of CHS doing NA, we had a whole new level of legitimacy in the debate.

While progression is still slow, without the open minds of CHS like Eaton/Denkler/Press and others we'd be dead in the water, or at least still flying over lots of it to get to France for NA. However, it is absolutely true that NA's spread in the US is ultimately patient driven through the Internet. Enough research on the old BioS files will prove that. We have BioSpecifics to thank for that even though NA is a competing procure with Collegenase. The NA movement was an unintended side effect of their Forum which was presumably created to help promote Collegenase, not competition for it.

The Internet is infamous for it's negative side, however here is a case where patients have taken treatment options into their own hands (so to speak) and made things happen. It's fun to watch and be a part of.

Edited at 15.10.07 21:17