How do LL methods rank in terms of non-union / nonunion risks?

Edit Post

Quote from: myloginacct on November 27, 2017, 07:17:28 PMI've heard of a few patients here having fibula non-union even after doing external tibias (not sure if they did LON/LATN, though). Maybe precice is the only LL method that can really deal with nonunion.

Also, about 11% (6) of patients had serious complications in this study by Catagni, although probably only 2 (3.7%) are not walking again - that is, if the bone grafting didn't work ("autologous cancellous bone grafting from the iliac crest was undertaken for atrophy of the new bone at the distal distraction site in two patients"). It seems most people on here have no idea what they're getting into. These are the percentages using HEF in Europe.

I remember someone mention that if for some reason fíbula cant consolidate, that Wouldnt really affect. About the study, I thought that complications were rare with Pure Ilizarov, however, I was wrong. If you can pay precise, then go for It in femurs, but keep in mind that the surgery is dar more bloody and longer than Ilizarov.

Edit Post

Quote from: myloginacct on November 26, 2017, 12:26:50 AMEven that answer already helps a bit.

If nonunion after LL is a total coin flip, I'm thinking no one should ever do LL. If there's no way to predict it before it becomes worse or to stop before total nonunion (i.e. as opposed to delayed union), no one should do LL. One could argue nonunion shouldn't be that scary of a prospect due to all the documented evidence posted in these forums, but I'm guessing the sample is biased, as most of the nonunion cases probably didn't exactly feel like telling a bunch of strangers and everyone else on the internet how they just spent thousands of dollars in savings to lose their legs.

Edit: Though I'm looking at some CLL papers and the numbers of suspect nonunions seem to form a low enough percentage. I need to research this further, in any case.

Well, non-union doesn't have to do with internal or external method but rather lengthening too fast.