The problem with that anecdote is that its all with the benefit of hindsight. Certainly, in this instance, non-operative management was appropriate. But the more important question is what on average happens to the entire 'population' of people presenting with Hadfield's symptoms and signs if they're managed operatively and non-operatively.
If we imagine a disease where non-operative management leads to a 50% mortality rate within a year. If we take 100 people with this disease and manage them non-operatively, at the end of a year we'll have 50 people saying how pleased they are to have avoided surgery and complaining about the aggressiveness of surgeons, and we'll have 50 dead people.
That's why the diagnosis and management of disease must be informed by high quality clinical studies, rather than anecdotes.
If we imagine a disease where non-operative management leads to a 50% mortality rate within a year. If we take 100 people with this disease and manage them non-operatively, at the end of a year we'll have 50 people saying how pleased they are to have avoided surgery and complaining about the aggressiveness of surgeons, and we'll have 50 dead people.
That's why the diagnosis and management of disease must be informed by high quality clinical studies, rather than anecdotes.