I think you are right. The cords are dissiloved dissolved, instead of just snapped. The big advantage I see is that my local hand doc will use collegenase but not NA. I would not have to travel to get treated for DD.

Dilly,

At present, the use of Collagenase is to inject just enough into a cord so it can be weakened. The patient returns to the doctor in a few days to have it snapped. NA does the same thing to the cord with a needle, allowing it to be snapped immediately. Currently no attempt to dissolved any additional diseased tissue is being made with Collagenase.

So, it is a very conservative approach that has being used in the Collagenase trials. The fear of collateral damage must be eliminated through testing. It would be great if it proved safe enough to dissolve nodules, as they seem to be the beginning point of the disease. What would Dups cords do if their nodules were dissolved? They could get very lonely and quite useless. NA can't do that, so Collagenase could eventually prove to be a very significant, even preventative, treatment. But not as yet. It hasn't been tried.

Dilly, what is the reason your doc would use Collagenase but not NA? The recurrence argument goes out the window, as neither treatments removes tissue. Recurrence rates should be equivalent. The only remaining objection is nerve damage, which Eaton has shown to be less of a problem than with Open Surgery. I'll bet your doc is unaware of these facts.

No matter. At this rate, NA will be readily available to most Americans before Collagenase even comes to market. Your doctors reluctance will be of no relevance.