Well, I believe you already know my opinion on this, and I think I already know yours! I posted this as a response to a question on another board. It's similar to our discussion from last week:
RSD and RND are exactly the same thing. Anybody who says otherwise is either misinformed or is adhering to to an idea that has no scientific validity. RND is a term commonly used by a certain set of pediatric doctors who believe in a certain set of practices to treat whatever you want to call this stupid disease.
These doctors treat whatever-they-call-it with intensive physical therapy, and sometimes the very basic combination of Neurontin and Elavil. And they often get very good results with this treatment. Because although their theories are in my opinion, ridiculous, the treatment is very basic, conservative and works in a great deal of pediatric patients.
Why is this a pediatric thing? Where did these theories come from? It comes from the fact that children often recover more readily from RSD, without invasive procedures. However, that doesn't make it a different disease. It's to be expected. Neuroplasticity (the ability of the nervous system to rerout and "fix" itself) lasts well into the 20s. Adults don't have that advantage, and more steps must be taken to retrain the nervous system.
My problem with all of this? I don't want to name names of doctors who have definitely helped some people, but some of them have published articles and whatnot solely blaming psychological factors for the development of RSD (or RND).
That doesn't make RND an illegitimate term for this disease. Really, I think it's a better name than CRPS. RND, standing for reflex neurovascular dystrophy, at least takes into account that there are vascular problems seen in RSD or RND. The most distressing part of this disease may be pain, but there are other things going on here.
Last edited by betsyherm; 05-27-2007 at 11:08 AM.
Reason: Deleted a superfluous comma. I was a journalism major, it has to be perfect!