When I first began researching and lurking these forums, I had the same opinion. You see the same names mentioned again and again in posts mentioning the best surgeons to undergo this procedure with. Paley and Guichet were consistently mentioned and I began to ask why these 2 names appeared so often. From diaries, reading their methods, their studies, expertise and experience in the field it was clear why people would choose Paley, I couldn't find the same rationale for choosing Guichet to such a great degree besides experience.
Personally speaking and my greatest issue with Guichet is I believe he lengthens at a rate that, from the information I have gathered isn't beneficial for soft tissue recovery and adaptation nor consolidation. From the large distraction during surgery to the rapid lengthening throughout the lengthening phase. Coincidentally, the 'horror' stories have more issues with non-union rather than the much preferable pre-consolidation. I believe his 'success' stories appear to have recovered so well is because they were in excellent shape prior to the surgery as Guichet recommends meaning the hit they took was considerably less noticeable and appears better than someone who did no preparation but potentially have damaged their soft tissues much more than had they lengthened at a reasonable rate. Add the fact that his method appears to have become outdated and offers no tangible benefit over other, newer and in my opinion better methods and his cost which rivals the very best orthopedic surgeons - as of 2017, I would not go to him for this procedure as I believe there are better candidates for a similar if not better price. His bedside manner is a contentious issue but is completely irrelevant if the results are satisfactory.
Of course, this is just my personal conjecture and the method Guichet uses could be the most optimal for limb lengthening and he may have his own reasons which I am unaware of as to why he does the procedure in this manner - there just isn't the research out there to definitively say that one way is better or worse than another, just hypothesis, vastly varied anecdotes with no controls and semi-relevant research.
Quote from: The Kaiser on February 28, 2017, 10:02:34 AMThat guy is lying if he didn't give us a proof from the email, am sure he misunderstood Dr Guichet, because Guichet told me when i asked him to do 10 cm, he said yes with repeated surgery only. That's mean i do 7 cm in my femur and after a year i will do the rest (3 cm) if i insist
Further lengthening in the femur or 3CM of tibial lengthening? If 2 femoral lengthening procedures, resulting in a total gain of 10CM, waiting a year before further surgery will offer negligible benefits if the soft tissue is over lengthened and already damaged, which it likely will be at 7CM and will only result in further damage which it definitely will be at 10CM. Primarily, I would advise a more conservative and 'safe' amount to lengthen, if not, it would probably be more beneficial to lengthen 5CM and then the remaining 5CM a year later meaning the soft tissue has initially been 'less' damaged and more stretched meaning that year will allow your body to adapt to some degree. Good luck with whatever you do.
