Dr. Paley talks PRECICE MAX Weight Bearing Nail

Member

Posts: 465

Joined: Feb 2020

Posted on Dec 21, 2023, 3:12 pm

#1

Hey everyone hope you're doing well!

Just wanted to drop by to say that it's FINALLY that time! That's right, Dr. Paley is coming on Limb Lengthening LIVE for episode 106! 🎙️ He's going to talk about the new PRECICE Max Nail. It's the weight bearing device and successor to the STRYDE nail that has been long awaited. It's very popular amongst patients due to having the features of the PRECICE nail with weight bearing capabilities. It's a game-changer for anyone going through lengthening.Dr. Paley's going to get into all the details about the P-MAX and clear up any confusion you may have heard. You're getting accurate info straight from the chief design surgeon of the nail.

If we have time, you might want to also stick around for the live Q&A too – it's your shot to ask him anything about the P-MAX or your own LL questions etc. You can email your questions to me (anonymously if you want) to [email protected] or just click link and show up LIVE. The submitted questions are given priority.

Catch you on Friday, Dec 22, 5 PM EDT. Don't miss out on learning more about the Precice Max and asking your LL questions to Dr. Paley 🐐

Click Link Below to Watch LIVE!

https://youtube.com/live/i8eVt0r1xoI

Like (0)

K

Kintaeryos

Member

Posts: 24

Joined: Nov 2023

Posted on Dec 21, 2023, 5:03 pm

#2

Nice, not only finally getting some concrete news about Precise Max but straight from Dr. Paley with you interviewing. I submitted my 2 questions, looking forward to it. In case something goes wrong with the email, here they are again just to be sure:

"A common topic of discussion when it comes to LL is the tibia to femur ratio, which for most men tends to be 0.80 with relatively little deviation. Some people claim that deviation from this ratio due to lengthening only one segment can cause various problems, including not just uncanny aesthetics and leg appearance but also altered biomechanics and other physical problems in the future (e.g. arthritis). However, it is also claimed that quadrilateral LL is more dangerous than single-segment LL.
Therefore, assuming time and money are not an issue, is it safer to do quadrilateral LL with per-segment increases such that the tibia to femur ratio is preserved, or are the risks of quadrilateral lengthening to end up with a normal tibia to femur ratio greater than the risks of doing single LL and ending up with an altered tibia to femur ratio? If it matters, I'm thinking of doing 7 cm: either femurs-only, or double, e.g. 5 cm for the femurs and 2 cm for the tibias (or whatever combination would preserve my tibia to femur ratio as decided by the doctor). Thank you."

"Relating to my previous question of single-segment versus quadrilateral lengthening: it is widely claimed that the risk of LL is determined by the per-segment increase, with each segment having its own safety limit. The general numbers often mentioned are 8 cm for the femurs and 5 cm for the tibias. Does that then mean that if a patient wants for example 7 cm of extra height, and time and money are not an issue, it's safer to divide that increase along the two segments, ending up with per-segment increases further below the safety limits compared to doing the whole increase on the femur, where it would be only 1 cm below? Or do the overall risks of quadrilateral lengthening nullify the decrease in risk from lengthening further below each segment's safety limits? Thank you."

Edit Post

Nice, not only finally getting some concrete news about Precise Max but straight from Dr. Paley with you interviewing. I submitted my 2 questions, looking forward to it. In case something goes wrong with the email, here they are again just to be sure:

"A common topic of discussion when it comes to LL is the tibia to femur ratio, which for most men tends to be 0.80 with relatively little deviation. Some people claim that deviation from this ratio due to lengthening only one segment can cause various problems, including not just uncanny aesthetics and leg appearance but also altered biomechanics and other physical problems in the future (e.g. arthritis). However, it is also claimed that quadrilateral LL is more dangerous than single-segment LL.
Therefore, assuming time and money are not an issue, is it safer to do quadrilateral LL with per-segment increases such that the tibia to femur ratio is preserved, or are the risks of quadrilateral lengthening to end up with a normal tibia to femur ratio greater than the risks of doing single LL and ending up with an altered tibia to femur ratio? If it matters, I'm thinking of doing 7 cm: either femurs-only, or double, e.g. 5 cm for the femurs and 2 cm for the tibias (or whatever combination would preserve my tibia to femur ratio as decided by the doctor). Thank you."

"Relating to my previous question of single-segment versus quadrilateral lengthening: it is widely claimed that the risk of LL is determined by the per-segment increase, with each segment having its own safety limit. The general numbers often mentioned are 8 cm for the femurs and 5 cm for the tibias. Does that then mean that if a patient wants for example 7 cm of extra height, and time and money are not an issue, it's safer to divide that increase along the two segments, ending up with per-segment increases further below the safety limits compared to doing the whole increase on the femur, where it would be only 1 cm below? Or do the overall risks of quadrilateral lengthening nullify the decrease in risk from lengthening further below each segment's safety limits? Thank you."

Like (0)

1

1team

Member

Posts: 367

Joined: Jul 2022

Posted on Dec 21, 2023, 5:41 pm

#3

Here's hoping that they did a bit more testing so it's not another 3 years! without a magnetic weight bearing nail on the market like Stryde.

Like (0)

N

NailedLegs

Member

Posts: 336

Joined: May 2023

Posted on Dec 21, 2023, 11:15 pm

#4

I am looking forward to this interview. Thank you Victor.

Quote from: Kintaeryos on December 21, 2023, 05:03:56 PMNice, not only finally getting some concrete news about Precise Max but straight from Dr. Paley with you interviewing. I submitted my 2 questions, looking forward to it. In case something goes wrong with the email, here they are again just to be sure:

"A common topic of discussion when it comes to LL is the tibia to femur ratio, which for most men tends to be 0.80 with relatively little deviation. Some people claim that deviation from this ratio due to lengthening only one segment can cause various problems, including not just uncanny aesthetics and leg appearance but also altered biomechanics and other physical problems in the future (e.g. arthritis). However, it is also claimed that quadrilateral LL is more dangerous than single-segment LL.
Therefore, assuming time and money are not an issue, is it safer to do quadrilateral LL with per-segment increases such that the tibia to femur ratio is preserved, or are the risks of quadrilateral lengthening to end up with a normal tibia to femur ratio greater than the risks of doing single LL and ending up with an altered tibia to femur ratio? If it matters, I'm thinking of doing 7 cm: either femurs-only, or double, e.g. 5 cm for the femurs and 2 cm for the tibias (or whatever combination would preserve my tibia to femur ratio as decided by the doctor). Thank you."

"Relating to my previous question of single-segment versus quadrilateral lengthening: it is widely claimed that the risk of LL is determined by the per-segment increase, with each segment having its own safety limit. The general numbers often mentioned are 8 cm for the femurs and 5 cm for the tibias. Does that then mean that if a patient wants for example 7 cm of extra height, and time and money are not an issue, it's safer to divide that increase along the two segments, ending up with per-segment increases further below the safety limits compared to doing the whole increase on the femur, where it would be only 1 cm below? Or do the overall risks of quadrilateral lengthening nullify the decrease in risk from lengthening further below each segment's safety limits? Thank you."

Great question. I am curious what Dr. Paley thinks.

Edit Post

I am looking forward to this interview. Thank you Victor.

Quote from: Kintaeryos on December 21, 2023, 05:03:56 PMNice, not only finally getting some concrete news about Precise Max but straight from Dr. Paley with you interviewing. I submitted my 2 questions, looking forward to it. In case something goes wrong with the email, here they are again just to be sure:

"A common topic of discussion when it comes to LL is the tibia to femur ratio, which for most men tends to be 0.80 with relatively little deviation. Some people claim that deviation from this ratio due to lengthening only one segment can cause various problems, including not just uncanny aesthetics and leg appearance but also altered biomechanics and other physical problems in the future (e.g. arthritis). However, it is also claimed that quadrilateral LL is more dangerous than single-segment LL.
Therefore, assuming time and money are not an issue, is it safer to do quadrilateral LL with per-segment increases such that the tibia to femur ratio is preserved, or are the risks of quadrilateral lengthening to end up with a normal tibia to femur ratio greater than the risks of doing single LL and ending up with an altered tibia to femur ratio? If it matters, I'm thinking of doing 7 cm: either femurs-only, or double, e.g. 5 cm for the femurs and 2 cm for the tibias (or whatever combination would preserve my tibia to femur ratio as decided by the doctor). Thank you."

"Relating to my previous question of single-segment versus quadrilateral lengthening: it is widely claimed that the risk of LL is determined by the per-segment increase, with each segment having its own safety limit. The general numbers often mentioned are 8 cm for the femurs and 5 cm for the tibias. Does that then mean that if a patient wants for example 7 cm of extra height, and time and money are not an issue, it's safer to divide that increase along the two segments, ending up with per-segment increases further below the safety limits compared to doing the whole increase on the femur, where it would be only 1 cm below? Or do the overall risks of quadrilateral lengthening nullify the decrease in risk from lengthening further below each segment's safety limits? Thank you."

Great question. I am curious what Dr. Paley thinks.

Like (0)

Dr. Paley talks PRECICE MAX Weight Bearing Nail

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Related Topics