I'm going to lengthen both of my lower segments in the end as I need more than 4 inches of total lengthening.
Which plan sounds more time saving:
1. Lengthen tibia for 2 inches with pure external method, recover and then lengthen the femurs
2. Lengthen femurs for 3 inches, allow it to consolidate for at least 75% and immediately get the 2 inches tibia surgery
Now, option 1 will take at least 1 year to remove the frames from tibia whilst with option 2 I can lengthen the femurs in about 3 months, then wait another 3 months for consolidation and immediately undergo pure external tibia surgery with the nails inside my femurs. After the tibia consolidates, remove the fixators from tibia and also remove the nails from my femurs.
What do you think? Option 2 clearly has an advantage as it saves considerable amount of time IMO.
Related Medical Evidence Peer-Reviewed
Posted on Apr 30, 2024, 7:34 pm
#1
Posted on May 4, 2024, 6:09 am
#2
Your priority should be safety, not expediency. You can't be risk averse enough with this surgery. Most reputable doctors won't do 2) anyway.
Posted on May 4, 2024, 2:25 pm
#3
If we count Paley as a reputable doc, then he does simultaneous quadrilateral which is much more brutal than lengthening femurs first and after 6 months smashing the tibia bones while your femurs is about 75% healed.
You must be logged in to post a reply.
Related Topics
How about the German guy who did 18cm in livelifetaller now?
Minkowski
2 replies • 1 week ago
Limb lengthening costs in London GP clinics versus private hospitals Which is cheaper
mason_f89
7 replies • 2 weeks ago
Limb lengthening surgery above 40: Is it still a viable option for height increase
sofia2000
7 replies • 2 weeks ago
Stryde Nail 2024 Results: Is This the Future of Femur Lengthening Surgery
mike_t
7 replies • 3 weeks ago
Precice Stryde nail vs traditional lengthening methods which is safer
victoria1991
7 replies • 3 weeks ago
Precice nail surgical technique: Does it outperform LON method for femur lengthening
owen_b
7 replies • 3 weeks ago