It will be a win-win situation for me.

Edit Post

Quote from: Bruce Wayne on May 24, 2018, 07:37:40 PMI was comparing tibia lengthening to femur lengthening. In your case, would you choose the safest and least invasive LL method that would get you to 177cm with higher knee or the more invasive and dangerous LL (that has caused a number of fat embolism cases) that would get you to 179cm with lower knee?

I'd choose the safest and get myself to 177cm. 7cm with minimal risks? Sounds great to me. That would be a dream scenario for most.

Edit Post

Quote from: Bruce Wayne on May 24, 2018, 01:49:18 PMYeah, safety and affordability are the main reasons. It's been said to be the least invasive and safest form of LL.

But the paper mentioned "better cosmetic appearence", I disagree (assuming we do femurs if we do internal). Hiding scars is easy, but proportions-wise, longer femur isn't very aesthetic. I just realize raising the knee level is pretty important for the looks.

However, the advantage of internal femur is the possibility of lengthening extra 1-2cm. I'm pretty confused also.

I'm guessing the patients who responded to the questionnaire preferred internal due to convenience and overlooked how invasive and the possible long-term effects. Anyway, those patients made it alive post-LL and obviously couldn't realize the danger they were in.

Not going to argue about internals vs externals, but you should read this if you're planning externals. Lots of details covered, and most apply to adults, as well.

https://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5145837

Edit Post

Quote from: myloginacc on July 17, 2018, 10:19:29 PMNot going to argue about internals vs externals, but you should read this if you're planning externals. Lots of details covered, and most apply to adults, as well.

https://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5145837

Thanks man. I guess each method has its own disadvantages, but the risks should be quite minimum with external method overall. Maybe you're right afterall that we should avoid India due to sanitary conditions that are not optimal and could double the chances of PTI.

Edit Post

hello bruce, I see myself in your presentation, the discomfort described by you is common to most of all of us who are here in hopes of redeeming our lives. anyway I wrote you a personal message. in any case the internal femur risks would be the same even with Stryde? With stryde the movement and recovery in walking should be early making it more difficult to atrophy the limbs without a detachment period in which the patient does not walk for 3 4 months .. should bring more benefits no? after this would you still recommend external shins? with the discomfort they entail in recovery and pain? despite the risks of fat embolism being at a minimum? thank you