First of all, Steve, who is your doctor in Wisconsin. That is where I am.
Second, I did not mean to start a big argument over this. I just think, at this point, that if I go to someone like Dr. Eaton, who knows his craft better than anyone in this country, I should have better odds to not have nerve damage from NA.
When the PT guy said to me, he would probably see me again after I had surgery that will surly come up at some point, I thought, Is PT or OT required after the NA too?
I have two different problems here...one with the Dups, and in the same area, a problem with the tendon after the trigger finger operation. That is what we have been working on. But, I said to him the other day, wonder how much of this problem is the tendon, and how much the Dups. is keeping me from recovering from the tendon damage. He agreed with me.
My excersizes always bring me back, and with a vibrator on my hand, it is even better. But, it always comes back to a battle with the finger yet again.
I am in the thought, that , I would like to try Dr. Eaton, before I would have my hands cut up yet again.
This is the last thing I ever thought would be my problem in my life. Go Figure...
Thank you for all of the input. I will keep in touch about the progress, or lack of.
Good wishes to you all, and please don't get into arguments. We are all in here for the same thing, to help each other, with questions, answers, and results. Not all of this other stuff. Let's just keep it on the subject. Thanks,
Patty

No Name,

My post criticized CHS for having a blind spot when it comes to NA. Currently, a huge issue for them with NA is that they ASSUME that NA would have a GREATER association with nerve injury than OS. They have absolutely no data to support this assumption. The data we <<do>> have shows just the opposite. True enough, this French data is open to criticism, but that in no way can be turned around to support the idea that NA has a higher rate of damage. That makes no logical sense whatsoever.

If you wish to dismiss all the French data, be my guest. My point is still that there is no data showing NA has a higher rate of nerve damage than OS. And yet, this is the assumption of many CHS. It is based on nothing but thin air. If you know of a study that can support their assumption, we should all benefit from it.

So, when the authorities we must trust with our health make insupportable statements based on nothing but assumption, this deserves to be criticized. The actual fact is that Eaton's track record with NA is quite nearly flawless at 1,000 procedures and counting. He does not "cherry pick" his cases, but is able to help about 90% of those who come to him. Only a fool would guarantee that NA never caused damage. Please don't ascribe to me what I have not said. You are right in this: Once Eaton's data on nerve damage is presented, my criticism of CHS blind spot will hold even more weight.

It is true that entrenched assumptions in many fields die hard. They die a little faster when they are questioned repeatedly. We know your position, so naturally from your view, I've contributed nothing. That, my friend, is a matter of perspective.

I am doing my resurch. I am greatful for all of your posts. I do know, that the PT man said, he has patients that have had the regular surgery, and are doing just fine. But, if even with the cutting or the NA, the procedure must be done again.
My thinking is, if it has to be done again and again, and again....there should be less damage from scar tissue, and other problems with the NA. The train of history is, that it has to be done every three to five years. How much Scar Tissue can that hand take with the traditional surgery?
I will say again, when these things are published, most of the hand surgeons in this country will have to take notice, and learn. I am not up to spending the rest of my life having my hand cut up. I found that out with my back. I had a surgery on One Disc, and four years later, the Scar Tissue became my worst enemy. Then, another surgery. That is what happens.
I am reading your posts, and am greatful for your input.
Thanks, Patty

How do you know what "most CHS" think? And how do you know what the "facts" will be when they are in? I don't think nerve damage is a significant problem with either procedure. Comparisons are not significant either. Remember a fasciectomy is the procedure often used when a person is not suitable for NA. The degree of difficulty represented by the patient can be very different. The NA procedure is used on much less difficult situations than is the use of fasciectomies. So no comparison is completely valid.

toM,

You are right on! There has not been 1 case of nerve damage reported to me or in fact nothing at all detrimental with the NA procedure. PLEASE: Enough is enough. Let's proceed and finally arrive at the conclusion that NA is the BEST procedure we have going for us at this time. Surgery is DEAD and should be buried along with those that still adhere to the scalpel method.