Larry #1,

I'm comparing the 1995 French clinical study of 992 hands treated by needle fasciotomy VS Charles Eaton's current data on the approximately 1,400 hands.

http://assoc.wanadoo.fr/f.badois-dupuytren/html/gbresultats95.html

French: Nerve damage = 29 Flexor tendon ruptures = 2

The main safety concerns American CHS have with what they call a "Blind" procedure (NA) are (1) Flexor tendon ruptures and (2) Nerve damage. This was Eaton's concern as well, coming directly out of the same CHS medical culture that had overwhelmingly rejected NA. What he has done is to not only to *validate* the excellent French safety record, but to *best* them in the process. So far, Zero tendon ruptures and Zero Nerve damage with 1,400 patients. Given the two sample sizes involved (992 and 1,400) I don't think his perfect record is due to chance alone.

I'm proposing that given their extensive training, specialty and experience, American CHS doing NA will have a slight advantage over their French counterparts. I could be wrong, but that's what the data seems to suggest. Granted, it is not a big or significant difference when compared to the much greater risks associated with invasive OS.

My point was simply that while Americans will be paying a World Class price for NA, they can also expect World Class treatment.