I'm pleased to inform you that Dr Eaton does have an NA study under way. It's my understanding that it is due to be completed sometime in 2006.

.

Dr. Eaton
The Hand Center
1002 S Old Dixie Hwy, Suite 105, Jupiter FL 33458
Phone 561-746-7686
FAX 561-746-3420

"Success rate" is a term that only has meaning when results are measured against what has been the Gold Standard of medical intervention, and that is "Open Surgery." As such, NA compares favorably in terms of overall correction, lack of side effects such as nerve damage, and length of recovery.

The down side, and the real question to be answered, is rate of recurrence compared to OS. All indications are that it will be higher. The question is *how much*, and is it worth it when NA's positive results are compared to OS.

The other wild cards are that NA can be repeated far more than OS, and that NA does not hamper OS later on, should that option become more attractive in any given patient. Not so in reverse. OS leaves scaring than can make NA impossible.

Therefore, an argument can be made that the best general long term approach is to start with and repeat NA until such time that OS becomes the better option. The best guess by the doctor currently most experienced in *both* procedures is that NA will be indefinitely sufficient in well over 50% of all new cases of Dups. If true, this would render OS to the court of last resort. In other words, NA may be able to successfully cope with the disease well enough to avoid the need of OS in the majority of people. Being far less invasive, NA is the initial treatment of choice

"Why isn't this standard procedure?"

The two most significant reasons stated by CHS are as follows:

1)Because the procedure is “blind” (the surgeon can't see beneath the skin) unacceptable rates of nerve damage are assumed.

This assumption has proven to be unfounded. The “eyes” of the surgeon is the verbal feedback from the patent who can easily tell when the needle is close to a nerve. NA has proven to be *far* safer than OS in terms of nerve damage. Eaton's clinical data proves this beyond any doubt whatsoever.

2) A predicted unacceptable rates of recurrence with NA Vs OS. Full Open Surgery was designed to remove all the diseased tissue in the effected hand as well as release the contraction. Anything less than 100% removal leaves the door open to recurrence.

The jury is still out on this one, as the most respected clinical data will come from Eaton in 2006. I doubt he will be doing long term (5 year) followup, which is what will be required to publish the results. Instead, Eaton will be presenting his short term data at nest year's CHS Convention.

As evidenced here, there *are* a number of people for whom recurrence is a significant issue after NA. One poster told us that Eaton refused to continue doing NA on him and recommended OS. However, others reporting here do not seem to have a significant recurrence issues after NA. Unfortunately, most posters here have had NA less than three years ago, so we just don't about long term yet. Fortunately, NA is easily repeatable. OS is not.

Steve, I'll bet you'd be willing to sit on a plane for 22 hours every two years (or so) to keep your fingers straight. Am I right? Until more surgeons realize that their two objections are unwarranted, that's what we *all* must do.

Randy H.

Can you please provide references to prove that surgery causes more nerve damage than NA? That seems hard to believe based just on common sense. How can surgery - where you see everything - cause more nerve damage than an NA procedure where the doctor cannot see things? Honestly, that's a reach. Is there proof or published studies?

If not and I never found them, then your posts are on really thin ice. Please help me and provide some real, hard data. Without that, your claim that surgery causes more nerve damage than NA is without basis.

Please respond.