Randy H.

I have read that the French studies are questionable due to what may be a bais sample set. If there is no hard data from American sources and no doctor, no matter how good, can make a claim without peer review. So, there is no data to say nerve damage is worse from surgery vs NA.

You have not answered the question as to how you can claim that a blind procedure has a lower rate than a procedure where one can see what they are doing. Also, if NA is being performed on milder cases than surgery than you are comparing apples to oranges.

NA offers a good alternative, but its not by itself better. Please don't try to scare people with claims that cannot be supported by hard data.

So, again. Where is the proof?

To Sam in PA:

Your point "how you can claim that a blind procedure has a lower rate than a procedure where one can see what they are doing" is logical. But there might still be reasoning for Randy's position, probably like this:

Surgery aims to remove all of the diseased tissue to avoid recurrence. If this tissue has grown around nerves or next to nerves, then it is nearly inevitable to damage nerves. And that is irrespective of the doctor's skill. With NA, not aiming to remove the tissue, I would expect a better chance to avoid nerve damage. At least that might be the reason.

Having said this, I would expect that a less invasive type of surgery would also result in less damage. I therefore checked the Moermans thesis (http://www.ccmbel.org/These.html). Moermans proposed what he calls segmental aponeurotomy. Interesting enough his rate of nerve damage is the same as in classical surgery, both have 1.5 percent (Table 12-12: Comparison of complications). The less invasive technique does significantly better with respect to infection, skin loss, loss of flexion, and sympathetic dystrophy (whatever that is). I would guess that the same is probably true for NA.

The samples are actually smaller than Eaton's: the classical study has about 600 patients, Moermans about 300. But, unfortunately, not American studies ...

Wolfgang

Hi Sam,

Having read through lots of DC info., I've come several times across THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. I don't remember where specifically I found it but HERE IT IS:

During NA a local anaesthetic is given which numbs the hand but NOT THE NERVE. The doctor TELLS the patient to alert him immediately if the patient feels any tingling, which will happen if the needle gets near or touches a nerve. If that happens, the doctor simply repositions the needle away from that particular spot. Thus with feedback from patient, the needle does not harm the nerve. That simple.

AND NOW I do remember that some of the posters on this site, whilst describing their NA experiences, have mentioned that they had EXPERIENCED the tingling sensation and the needle was immediately repositioned by the doctor!

I hope this sheds some light on the issue for you. I'm sure if you contacted any NA practitioner they could explain this to you, too (rather than trying to plow your way through the massive but not well organized info. on this site)!

Susan

Randy H.

What does Sean mean?

You did not address the question regarding proof that NA causes less or no nerve damage than does surgery. The French data has been challenged and its a valid challenge. The issue is that the sample set used mostly "successful" outcomes and that sinks any value to that data.

Also, you did not address the fact that NA is often performed on cases that less severe than those patients who require surgery. Thus, you cannot compare the two procedures and say that one versus the other causes less damage or is better. Its apples vs. oranges. Don't you understand the difference.

If surgery is only (or mostly) performed on serious, advanced cases of dups, than you cannot compare it to less advanced cases that use NA. Can you tell me who the percentage of NA patients who are advanced cases vs. less advanced? I bet you can't.

So, you have no PROOF. You know and so do the rest of us.

My post is not to be intrepreted as saying NA is bad or surgery is better, but to address important questions to help others make the choice that is best for themselves.

HEY, SAM!!!

I guess you missed the crucial info. in recent post (or see it repeated below) or are ignoring it AND the one below this which VERIFIES someone's real life actual experience.

So I wonder, WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE/INTEREST IN DC??? While you are baiting Randy about "absolute proof," you don't seem interested to investigate what's happening down here in the real world. There are certainly fallacies in your arguments.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, ENLIGHTEN US: DO YOU HAVE DUPS? HAVE YOU HAD SURGERY? WOULD YOU BE SO GOOD AS TO SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCES WITH US???
***************************************************
(Copy of previous post )

Hi Sam,
Having read through lots of DC info., I've come several times across THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. I don't remember where specifically I found it but HERE IT IS:
During NA a local anaesthetic is given which numbs the hand but NOT THE NERVE. The doctor TELLS the patient to alert him immediately if the patient feels any tingling, which will happen if the needle gets near or touches a nerve. If that happens, the doctor simply repositions the needle away from that particular spot. Thus with feedback from patient, the needle does not harm the nerve. That simple.
AND NOW I do remember that some of the posters on this site, whilst describing their NA experiences, have mentioned that they had EXPERIENCED the tingling sensation and the needle was immediately repositioned by the doctor!
I hope this sheds some light on the issue for you. I'm sure if you contacted any NA practitioner they could explain this to you, too (rather than trying to plow your way through the massive but not well organized info. on this site)!
Susan