Quote from: Johnson1111 on June 02, 2018, 05:45:34 PMDo more people get away with 9cm-10cm on femur than we may have originally thought? Or are alot of the procedures fabricated and there is very little evidence of 9cm-10cm ever being successful? For someone to maintain a decent reputation for a decent period of time and be highly regarded whilst lengthening ungodly amounts, means they must have had some successful outcomes, no?
Seems there were even stories from Sarin where people lengthened 9cm and were "fine" although there were no logs.
He just has a billion of cases. He does LL in the richest country in Europe.
If he didn't have success stories, no one would go to him. Regardless, 9-10cm is too much for the vast majority of people who want CLL.
To exemplify: one figure I've seen for femur size in this forum was 43cm (don't remember from which poster). 15% of that is 6.45cm. This falls in line with what is "folk knowledge" here: lengthening up to 6.5cm being the safer limit for femurs. The medical literature I've read on LL associates higher risks and complications from and above 20% of your initial bone length.
Someone would need to have 60cm femurs for 9cm to be equivalent (15% of their initial bone length), and 66.67cm femurs for 10cm to be the 15% equivalence. Even then, we don't really know if that is all there is to it - if the soft tissues would really behave/feel relatively the same after having been lengthened relatively the same with higher absolute numbers in one taller person, when compared to the equivalent in a shorter person (those values being lower in absolute numbers).
I know some people don't give a shxt about what I post because they collected all that money "and saw other people being fine", but I just try stating what I read in the medical literature those surgeons themselves wrote after operating on people like us.