Maybe they're not wrong. Among the issues not discussed here is the recurrance rate and given Randy's comments that until a year ago, only one NA doc and two years ago none. Another recent posting was from someone with recurrance after less than a month.

It seems that time is needed to determine recurrance rates and then to compare this to *other* treatments. One or two years is a VERY short period of time to claim success with a diesease that has varying rates of progression.

But one to has to wonder why the NA posters always avoid the recurrance question? And as for ringers, it appears that the site is loaded with them.

To Bob from Santa Rosa -

As a dairy nutritionist I don't have much to do with drug companies. I had NA done in January and am very satisfied. The question of recurrence with NA vs. surgery is a legitimate one and can only be answered when we have the comparative data. But the reasons to do NA instead of surgery are clear to me:

1) Repeatibility of the procedure - important with a chronic disease that is being treated, not cured.
2) Very short recovery times compared to sugery.
3) Local instead of general anesthesia, with its attendent risks.
4) High incidence of complications in surgery (20%); this level does not appear to be the case for NA.

So, yes, why is there so much resistance to NA? Simply because it is counter-intuitive to anyone, and doubly so to a surgeon, that a "blind" procedure is superior to opening up the hand, seeing what is in there, looking at it while you cut it out, and then sewing it back up. But the advent of science, of the experimental method, and of statistics, is the reason why we don't rely on intuition, and why we don't believe what is intuitively obvious - (for example it is obvious that the sun orbits the earth). And thus far, it seems that NA is the far preferable treatment. I have heard occasional rumors that Dr. Eaton will present his results at the annual meeting of hand surgeons; if so, the presentation should be very interesting. In the meantime, good luck with the procedure.

Steve Abrams

No Name said: "why the NA posters always avoid the recurrence question?"

I must have posted this line about 3 times on another thread recently:

4) Though *probably greater* with NA, the actual average rates of reoccurrence between NA and Open Surgery is unknown and a will be a legitimate topic of debate for some time.

Since I assume you would classify me as an "NA Poster", it would seem that your use of the word "always" above is inaccurate. If you'd been here a year ago or so, you would have known that Sean and I went around and around on this issue. I don't mid a recap. Really, It's no bother. From the French Site: http://assoc.wanadoo.fr/f.badois-dupuytren/html/gbsommaire.html

"A comparison of medical fasciotomy with surgical fasciectomy, reported in 1993 (Badois and Coll.), showed that short-term outcomes were comparable. The five-year recurrence rate is high (>50%) with *both* procedures, however, needle fasciotomy can be repeated as often as needed, whereas start again surgical procedure is hazardous."

From Dr. Eaton's Site:

"Recurrence is a problem with any treatment, but is more likely following NA than surgery. Repeat NA after NA is fairly straightforward. Repeat surgery after surgery is not."

My point has always been that for many of us the specter of a statistically greater rate of recurrence is of *little* consequence. Even if the final definitive data were to show a *double*......no let's say *tripple* the rate of recurrence for NA (I doubt it will), many would still want to give NA a shot before moving up the scale of more invasive procedures. And some just plan on repeating NA indefinitely, like having one's teeth cleaned. With Open Surgery we all have about three attempts at it, then we are done. Too much scaring. You can't do it forever.

I hope that makes the case for NA a little clearer to you.