Randy,
I want you to know that this discussion does not involve me. We have gone through this before and I am not interested. I did notice my name involved, what is that about?

To all,

I asked a pretty good and simple question that somehow fell into a fight between me and Randy that baffles me. However, after reading many topics on this forum, Randy seems to fight with a lot of people, so I don't take it to seriously. I guess I'm in good company.

What is important is that this "fight" got us off the subject: which asked for clinical proof that surgery causes a higher rate of nerve damage than NA. The information I have found says just the opposite, so I'm asking again for anyone to provide the backup to this claim. If NA can be proven to cause less nerve damage, that's great.
But, if NA causes less nerve damage than surgery performed on more advanced or aggressive cases, than the claim does not hold as its comparing apples to oranges. Lumping all types of cases into one comparison does not make sense and that's important to recognize as well.

From what I have learned, there is no proof that surgery causes more nerve damage than NA and there is no proof that NA results in less nerve damage. Thus, the claim being repeatably made on this site may be misleading. This is important as I'm sure no-one wants to lead others into making a wrong decision based on wrong information.

So, I am interested to learn the facts and if anyone can provide some insight, please share it. I know about the French studies and those studies have been challenged for good reason. Asking for data is just like asking for a second opinion.

But, to Randy and others, lets avoid the fight.

The risk of complications (nerve damage, loss of blood circulation, skin damage, infection, loss of mobility, hematoma, bone loss) during and following surgery has been estimated at 20% (Sibbit and Sibbit, 2001). Complication levels this high simply have not been reported for needle aponeurotomy. There are added risks when general anesthesia is used for surgery that are not present when doing NA. Of course, until Dr. Eaton publishes we only have the non peer-reviewed information of the French group, and anecdotal information from individuals, like myself, who have had NA. Along these lines, I would guess that some individual who had nerve damage with NA would have posted a comment on this website. I have yet to see it.

Steve

To Steve Abrams: I tried to find the paper you are referring to in your recent post. Do you have more details? Possibly the name is misspellt (Sibbitt)?

I think there is a general agreement about a complication rate of 15 - 20 percent but I would kije to read that paper.

By the way, if you are interested: with regard to hematoma we cite on our web site www.dupuytren-online.info an wide unknown paper by Wilhelm. He demonstrates that swollen hands after surgery are frequently related to previously existing constrictions in the arm's vein. Those could be diagnosed before surgery, normally people are not even aware of them.

Earlier in this thread I mentioned the thesis of Moermans about a less invasive surgery. I think this is also a paper well written and worth reading.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang -

The reference is:

Sibbit WL Jr, Sibbit RR (2001). Fibrosing syndromes: Dupuytren's contracture, diabetic stiff hand syndrome, plantar fasciitis, and retroperitoneal fibrosis. In WJ Koopman, ed., Arthritis and Allied Conditions, 14th ed., vol. 2, pp. 2054–2066. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins

Steve Abrams