It makes sense that removal of *all* the diseased tissue, all things being equal, would yield a lower (or slower) rate of relapse. From my understanding that's why the micro surgeon tries to get *every bit* of the Dups tissue he can. That's why he opens up the hand so much, giving him access to all lumps bumps and cords. Like a cancer, leave nothing behind. At present, though, the Collagenase injections are *not* intended to do that. Just enough enzyme is injected to dissolve the chord in one or more places so that it may them (in a few days) be stretched and broken by the physician (just like NA) Yes, because it is dissolving some of the cord material, you wind up with less diseased tissue than when you started. However, I haven't read anything that would indicate you don't wind up with at least 80% of the disease remaining.

Personally I am very hopeful that Collagenase will come to market. I'm a big fan. But....I still need someone to explain to me why your surgeon (and mine) insist that removing only 20% of the disease would be so significantly better than NA which mechanically does just as good a job in straightening in most cases. I'm not being pejorative here. There may be a good reason. I just haven't heard it. Right now it makes no sense to me that NA and the injections should have significanly different rates of return growth.

Since collagenase essentially dissolves collagen, maybe you're left with more of a gap between the snapped ends of the cord.