Is PE risk lower if you do each leg separately?

Edit Post

I am quite confused about this. If you do both legs together (bilaterally) there is a higher chance of creation of blood clots in the legs which can go to the lungs or brain.

If you do one leg first and then the other leg there is a lower chance of creation of blood clots but you are exposed to PE for a longer period of time (6 months in comparison to 3 months).

So is PE risk lower if you do it unilaterally instead of bilaterally?

Edit Post

Quote from: zaozari on November 09, 2021, 10:59:56 PMDr. Monegal (Barcelona) says one leg only each time (both tibia and femur) has lower risk of fat embolism in general.

Does it hold for pulmonary as well?

Edit Post

Thanks but I wanted to know for pulmonary in particular. You have to be worried about it for 3 months after surgery, it can get taxing.

Edit Post

Quote from: Siegfried on November 10, 2021, 11:11:04 AMWhat is PE?

Pulmonary embolism.

Edit Post

Quote from: zaozari on November 10, 2021, 02:07:49 PMIt scares me also, but the same way as if the embolism occurs in the brain or the heart.
It will be difficult to get precise information on that. Dr. Guichet for example says 2 surgeries (LL) in one  femur each, just generally double all risks in general.

Where did he say that?  I don't think it doubles all risks especially not fat embolism. Thats why even Paley doesn't do quad in one day. If Guichet said the opposite I don't trust him.

I want to know about PE in particular, it's making me very uneasy thinking about it 

Edit Post

Many docs have confirmed that doing one leg first and later on another will reduce the chances of fat embolism (I don't know about pulmonary embolism however). If Guichet does not agree then I don't trust him.

Twice incisions but each time it is half the incisions. If they have to make 10 incisions for bilateral they will do 5+5 anyway right?

For me the biggest concern right now is PE pulmonary embolism. I wanna know the probability of getting it. If its more than 1% then I won't do this procedure.

Edit Post

Quote from: zaozari on November 11, 2021, 03:35:34 PMI don't know. It would be nice if you post here the links to the articles, even to confront/asking Guichet about it. But he seems a serious man, medicine is not an "exact science".
At least the risk of infection is surely higher, the number and duration of anaesthesia is doubled which has its own risks and is allways a bit harmful for the brain.
But I really don't know if there is, and which is, the right choice. Maybe there isn't a medical consensus.
Most doctors however do it bilaterally and could charge easily more for two surgeries instead of one, even "simpler".

I will try to find some links. Paley's website has it for sure. And they recommend this for joint replacement surgeries also.

Risk of anesthesia is higher true.

but risk is infection is not higher. They will operate on a different leg each time, same number of incisions. You should obviously wait until your first leg's incisions have healed completely obviously.

Edit Post

Still thinking.

Other advantage is you can do precice and still walk on the healthy leg,.

check this link for double or single knee replacement it mentions about blood clots
https://www.hss.edu/conditions_expert-advice-on-bilateral-knee-replacement.asp