Dr Leonid N.Solomin (St. Petersburg, Russia)

Edit Post

any news ?

Edit Post

Dr Parihar said Dr Solomin is coming to Mumbai soon to teach an Ilizarov workshop. He's probably a safe option for those interested in doing this in Russia.

Edit Post

okay so I am planing ion doing external on tibia for 7 cm and while consolidating I will do lon on femurs for 7 cms how long do you all think this would take?

Edit Post

Quote from: RobinKing44 on September 27, 2014, 11:04:12 PMokay so I am planing ion doing external on tibia for 7 cm and while consolidating I will do lon on femurs for 7 cms how long do you all think this would take?

Probably 3-4 years before you'll be back to normal 75% as before if ever.

It is a very bad idea what you're planning.

Edit Post

Hey Sweden what about external tibias 7-8cm then LON femurs 5cm couple years later? I think that's reasonable amount of time of healing in between and small amount of lengthening on femurs would make it doable what do you think?

Edit Post

Terrible idea.

LON on femurs is never a good idea.

Edit Post

Quote from: Sweden on September 28, 2014, 08:40:40 AMTerrible idea.

LON on femurs is never a good idea.
sadly, I have to agree, just do external Tibias, with LL you screw your biomechanics anyway..right?

Edit Post

greek smidget.
I think Sweden was saying that LON on femurs is a bad idea, and by that he meant the method, Sweden's opinion is that internal for femur is good.

I don't think he was stating that all LL for femur is bad, only LON for femur greek smidget.

interestingly even though mechanical axis/anatomical axis should change, it wasn't observed in clinical trials.

so I am still yet to see reasons to why LON femur is the devil. certainly LON is better than cages. and lon femur in clinical studies has a 5% knee contracture rate. so it certainly has risks but those risks are not 30% knee contracture rate as with classic ilisorov cages for femur.

internal is the safest, but 5% knee contracture rate for lon femur is certainly not the devil. its a risk but not a massive risk.

knee contracture is fixed with quadriplasty.

Edit Post

Quote from: GROWtalORdieTRYING1 on September 28, 2014, 01:13:22 PMgreek smidget.
I think Sweden was saying that LON on femurs is a bad idea, and by that he meant the method, Sweden's opinion is that internal for femur is good.

I don't think he was stating that all LL for femur is bad, only LON for femur greek smidget.

interestingly even though mechanical axis/anatomical axis should change, it wasn't observed in clinical trials.

so I am still yet to see reasons to why LON femur is the devil. certainly LON is better than cages. and lon femur in clinical studies has a 5% knee contracture rate. so it certainly has risks but those risks are not 30% knee contracture rate as with classic ilisorov cages for femur.

internal is the safest, but 5% knee contracture rate for lon femur is certainly not the devil. its a risk but not a massive risk.

knee contracture is fixed with quadriplasty.

When you use the word LON femur in comparison to Ilizarov femur, do you mean LON with a monorail fixator or with an Ilizarov fixator plus an IM nail inside the femur?

Edit Post

Quote from: Greek-Semidget on September 28, 2014, 12:01:28 PMsadly, I have to agree, just do external Tibias, with LL you screw your biomechanics anyway..right?

Yeah but I'm dead set on lengthening my tibias at least 7cm and that put my tibias and femurs would be to close to the same length