Hi,

It seems I am a bit outside of the normal ranges. I first started showing symptoms in my late 20s (I am 39 now). I noticed from the graphs on another page that this is a bit unusual to say the least. I have not seen any literature on how this effects likelyhood of recovery or the period between a relapse. Anyone seen any information along those lines?

Regards,

Jason.

A short note (chapter 8.4) in Moermans' thesis reports

"Hueston nevertheless states that an early onset of the disease is a sign of a stronger diathesis and McFarlane et al. (1990b) found that patients whose disease has started before the age of 45 develop more recurrences."

The McFarlane et al. citation is

McFarlane R M, Botz J S (1990) (b)
The results of treatment. In: McFarlane R M (ed) Dupuytren's Disease. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 387-412

You probably would need a library to find this book.

Wolfgang

I believe there is also a very strong individual variation, statistics don't tell that much. A couple of years ago on a German Dupuytren symposium a surgeon told a story about a colleague who developed her first nodule at the age of 60. It progressed very slowly and never contracted severely. But at the age of 80 she developed another nodule in her other hand. That contracted the affected finger within a year. A completely different reaction even for the same patient. The doctor concluded: "What was the reason for this different behaviour? I wish I knew!".

Wolfgang

Most likely the healing process is the trigger. But NA is minimal invasive and won't trigger growth elsewhere. It's more an issue of classical surgery.

Wolfgang

Quote:

---

... Makes me worry a lot about the procedure (which ever I end up going for, leaning towards NA). The procedures obviously cause damage to the hand, and I read that damage to the hand "may" be a trigger.

---