I am a newbie to this matter and only investigating on the net for someone else. So forgive my ignorance. I've been to many sites before here. From what I find there seems to be 2 options surgery and NA. Among a couple of other iffy options.

Surgery is a long painful process with a 50/50 success rate, but risks nerve damage and hand functionality loss and increase the difficulty of re-treatment . NA is quick and relatively painless with a 50/50 without risk. Neither will cure DC and there is a 50% the risk of reoccurence.

There is debate to the use of NA versus surgery.

WHY would I choose surgery with its signifcant risk versus NA without risk and both offering the same duration of effectiveness? Am I missing something?

A few years ago I was in a similar situation with new medication and procedures being debated and tested for years while people suffered and I dare say a few died for the lack of approriate treatments being openly available. Its almost a mirror image of what I see now with DC but death is not an outcome here.

Len

I also agree

Even though I have gone through NA treatment
three times and I still have the disease, at least
I have not suffered the barbaric (in my mind) surgery
that most surgeons desire to perform. At my age (late
60's) I certainly hope that at least NA has given me
enough years to avoid the terrible rehab from the surgery
that occurs. Perhaps, if I were younger, I would have
to change my answer! NA has low risk and high potential
for excellent results if performed by a competent and
enlightened hand surgeon.

I was told by our NA practitioner that DC does return at a faster rate then with surgery. However, it's easier to perform repetative NA then it is repetative surgery so we chose NA.

As for the aggressive cases of DC, NA is the first line of defence but sugery may become inevitable. So the million dollar question is, 'What is an aggressive case?' It's when severe curling/ nodules return quickly after treatment.

Frances

I feel the question of this thread should more accurately be:

"Why would anyone go straight to Open Surgery before exhausting the possible benefits of NA?"

I have come to *reject* OS Vs NA thinking. It's not an Either/Or proposition. It's a Both/And. Many will be able to avoid the riggers of OS using NA. Some will not.

NA is simply a less dramatic, less invasive entry level of treatment with excellent results given it's benign nature. Think about it. In all areas of medicine, Doctors move up a ladder of treatments from the most benign to the most draconian. You don't move directly to Open Heart surgery because someone has chest pain. There are intermediate steps to be taken.

Finally we have a straight forward, safe and effective first level of treatment for Dups. Before, we just did *nothing*, or went all the way with Open Hand Surgery.

Why would anyone? Because they aren't being told about NA by surgeons who have believed misinformation about it. That's it. That's all it is.

But that's going to change.