To be completely transparent, I am 5'10 1/4" tall without shoes (about 178.5 cm). I'm by no means short but rather I am probably spot on the mean average height for American men. Having said that, I've considered the prospect of LL surgery on and off for the past couple years now. As indicated by the subject of this thread, if I were to move forward with LL surgery I would take a conservative (as conservative as having four major bones voluntarily broken can be) approach. What I would hypothetically pursue would be an added one inch to each tibia as well as an additional one inch to each femur, totaling 2 inches (roughly 5 cm in height increase). This would put me at roughly 6'0 1/4" or about 183 cm.
Let's assume I am fully comfortable with the lengthy amount of time required for this quadrilateral surgery (9 months for complete healing of tibia and 9 additional months for complete healing of femur bones, 18 months total). Sacrificing a year and a half or even up to 2 years is not my concern, after all, from the research I've gathered it seems like only about 6-8 months of that time I wouldn't be able to walk.
My bigger concern would be the prospect of losing athleticism to the extent that I would be unable to full recover it. I've read the countless anecdotes of LL patients becoming significantly less athletic subsequent to their LL surgeries, however, these patients typically received an increase of 2-3 inches on JUST the tibia or femur, some of whom went above 3 inches per bone.
I'm 27 years old, physically fit (about 180 lbs) and work out regularly. I lift weights 4 times per week, I play pick up basketball almost weekly, and golf all season when it's warm. Years ago when I ran track I actually ran a personal best 10.91 100 meter time although now I'm probably closer to mid 11's. I would not want to sacrifice my ability to perform any of these things at a high level beyond the roughly 2 years it would take to make a full recovery from quadrilateral LL surgery. I would have no problem fully immersing myself in the rehabilitation process following the surgeries and would challenge myself to make a complete recovery.
I welcome and would truly appreciate any insight from members of the forum and although I'd really appreciate any opinions, if you could, please disregard the psychological aspect of this matter when replying. I accept that I suffer from some level of height dysmorphia and that my vanity is probably annoying to many. Although I've never felt short per se, I've always felt like I am a couple inches from my ideal height. Actually I would happily take 6'2" or 6'3" but that's completely out of the question if I am to stay within my goal of retaining my full athletic ability. What I'm really looking for is positive or negative opinions in regard to my theory that losing a negligible (or no) amount of athleticism after undergoing quadrilateral LL surgery whereby only up to 1 inch (2.25 to 2.5 cm) was added to each tibia and femur, is feasible.
There is one guy here who did 2.5-3cm on his tibias so you can contact him.
To be honest, I doubt that you will be able to retain full athletic abilities as even a simple fracture can cause athletes to lose their abilities to some degree...
If you functionality is so important to you, I will resort to lifts instead of this surgery
I've broken my left ankle and fractured a vertebrae in my lower back and each time made a full recover (no noticeable loss in athletic ability). I'm not sure an injury like I just I mentioned and a broken tibia or femur is analogous but I appreciate the consideration. I just seems to me that the muscle tissue in my legs would be able to sufficiently accommodate a corresponding 1 inch increase in bone length. Unless there is something different between the nature of a typical tibia fracture and an elective LL break, I'm not sure what I am missing. Is there something different between the nature of the two? There's numerous studies that indicate a fractured bone is no more or less likely to be injured again.
Quote from: 2please on March 28, 2017, 09:19:47 PMI've broken my left ankle and fractured a vertebrae in my lower back and each time made a full recover (no noticeable loss in athletic ability). I'm not sure an injury like I just I mentioned and a broken tibia or femur is analogous but I appreciate the consideration. I just seems to me that the muscle tissue in my legs would be able to sufficiently accommodate a corresponding 1 inch increase in bone length. Unless there is something different between the nature of a typical tibia fracture and an elective LL break, I'm not sure what I am missing. Is there something different between the nature of the two? There's numerous studies that indicate a fractured bone is no more or less likely to be injured again.
Would you really be willing to do it for 1 inch though? Even at 4 cm im wondering if it would all be worth it but I defitnely would not do this surgery for one inch.
Quote from: 2please on March 28, 2017, 09:19:47 PMI'm not sure what I am missing. Is there something different between the nature of the two? There's numerous studies that indicate a fractured bone is no more or less likely to be injured again.
The unnatural and permanent stretching of soft tissue beyond its natural capability and the damage that comes with it. Your post makes me think that you believe you will be the exception to the rule, that all of the poor results are solely from over lengthening which is true to a point, but as far as we know any lengthening will lead to some decrease in athletic ability, including an inch.
we just had a guy who said he was back to 95% normal
Quote from: 682 on March 28, 2017, 09:52:25 PMThe unnatural and permanent stretching of soft tissue beyond its natural capability and the damage that comes with it. Your post makes me think that you believe you will be the exception to the rule, that all of the poor results are solely from over lengthening which is true to a point, but as far as we know any lengthening will lead to some decrease in athletic ability, including an inch.
It's not that I think I'm the exception to the rule, I'm just trying to figure out to what extent can soft tissue stretch but still be within that person's natural biomechanical limits before it exceeds whatever that limit is and athletic performance suffers as result. I understand there will be some (at least initially) unnatural stretching of soft tissue near the newly acquired increase in bone length but I'm not sure we can definitively say that the surrounding soft tissue won't be able to fully recover and assimilate into the new environment. There must be a point where someone would go from no or very little drop off in physical performance to a significant drop off in physical performance. Is this amount 1/4"? 1/2" of tibial/femoral length? Is it 1"? 2"?
It's difficult to say because basically ALL of the anecdotal evidence we have is of people lengthening bones by 2-3.5 inches. I personally haven't come across a scenario where somebody had only lengthened their tibia and/or femur 1 inch, which is understandable since the vast majority of people undergoing these extreme operations are less concerned with long term athletic performance and are much more concerned with attaining what they feel is an adequate vertical height.
We know that the bone itself heals completely and the likelihood of further injury to the bone is not any greater or lesser than prior to the surgery. For me at least it's difficult to imagine there isn't some level of acceptable soft tissue stretching that the body can accommodate before approaching permanently diminished athletic performance.
I heard Paley had some people that did a inch but too bad they don't visit the forum.
You will not be able to recover 100% athletically. Multiple doctors stated this, with Dr. Birkholtz stating explicitly that the maximum lengthening amount in order to fully recover athletically is zero (mods, since this question comes up so much, I wonder if that part of Dr. Birkholtz' answer can/should be stickied somewhere). Dr. Paley told me the same thing during my consult. He did state that I will get close, with a lot of hard work, but 100% is out of the question. It's not only tissue that stretches, your body mechanics, levers, center of gravity and range of motion are affected by the additional increase in height.
Everything in life has tradeoffs. This is one. Is the extra height worth losing some athletic ability? Only you can answer that. Best of luck with your decision.
This is where you make a compromise. You want more height, but you also want to retain your complete athletic ability. I'm sorry, I want the same, but it just won't happen. To some extent, you'll inevitably lose some physical capability. However, I'm sure you can return up to 90% of your abilities with physical therapy and consistent training for years after surgery. So, what do you choose? I'm 6'1", and had a dream height of 6'5", however, people here didn't really take me seriously, weren't understanding, and totally disregarded my height dysmorphia. They think my life is all set, and I'm just blaming my height for any failure or insecurity I have, which isn't true. Besides, EVEN IF you were able to retain 100% of your athletic ability, is it really worth it to break your bones, stretch nerves and muscle for extended periods of time for a gain of one inch in each bone? That's just a waste of time and money, and the physical and mental trauma will far outweigh the height gain you'll get from surgery, again, even if you were as athletically capable as you once were prior to surgery. If you feel like your life is very revolved around athleticism, can't let anything hinder your athletic performance even a 1%, and your career depends on it, don't do it. On the other hand, if you do it just for fun, to stay in shape, and you care more about your upper body strength and your vertical height, I think the height increase (by that I mean a bigger height increase than what you said. 2 inches on each bone is more worth it) will be more worth it in the long-run. Think about it.
You must be logged in to post a reply.