Posted on Aug 30, 2023, 3:07 pm
#1
Recently, I've been reading articles related to extensive limb lengthening for patients primarily diagnosed with Achondroplasia and Hypochondroplasia. I've been thinking of sharing a few thoughts I've had.
According to article by Paley from 2021, the average lengthening was 27 cm for achondroplasia (12-40 cm) and 17 cm for hypochondroplasia (range 10-25 cm). It showed a mean increase of 26 cm (range 15-30 cm) for adolescent-onset. There were almost no noticeable short-term complications.
Since I haven't had the experience yet, I am genuinely curious what is preventing patients without any such conditions from reaching these goals with a little bit of hard work. (even in their adulthood; leaving proportions and low motivation completely aside and talking solely about bone healing and soft tissue adaption), if they have been documented as success by many similar studies. It seems these results completely obliterate the safe norms set by many surgeons (8cm, 6.5 cm for femurs and tibias respectfully). Some argue that it is the muscle structure of these specific patients are different that can relatively quickly adapt to change, but I find this lacking solid evidence (if you can provide some, it'd be appreciated). Additionally, this particular study casts doubts on the idea that 'the longer your bones, the more you can gain.' In my controversial opinion, the only thing that allowed for such gains was the strong determination of the patients as all of them pushed way beyond their limits to get closer to average height as possible.
What am I missing here?
According to article by Paley from 2021, the average lengthening was 27 cm for achondroplasia (12-40 cm) and 17 cm for hypochondroplasia (range 10-25 cm). It showed a mean increase of 26 cm (range 15-30 cm) for adolescent-onset. There were almost no noticeable short-term complications.
Since I haven't had the experience yet, I am genuinely curious what is preventing patients without any such conditions from reaching these goals with a little bit of hard work. (even in their adulthood; leaving proportions and low motivation completely aside and talking solely about bone healing and soft tissue adaption), if they have been documented as success by many similar studies. It seems these results completely obliterate the safe norms set by many surgeons (8cm, 6.5 cm for femurs and tibias respectfully). Some argue that it is the muscle structure of these specific patients are different that can relatively quickly adapt to change, but I find this lacking solid evidence (if you can provide some, it'd be appreciated). Additionally, this particular study casts doubts on the idea that 'the longer your bones, the more you can gain.' In my controversial opinion, the only thing that allowed for such gains was the strong determination of the patients as all of them pushed way beyond their limits to get closer to average height as possible.
What am I missing here?