Quote from: SuchLL on December 31, 2021, 06:46:31 PMI find it hard to not be greedy once I went through surgeries, pain and those things… especially when I’m surrounded by other greedy patients lol.
Hey, pretty sure you're surrounded by me in Florida, and I'm not that greedy lol
There're some studies my assistant found that may or may not be helpful but I wanted to share here because it helps me make the decision between the 6cm or 8cm. It'd be even better to read more studies similar to them to make a better decision on the final length to achieve.
Complications in limb-lengthening procedures: a review of 49 cases:
Key Point: The most serious complications occurred in patients with >30% bone lengthening. Patients with <15% lengthening had a significantly decreased complication rate.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11411874/
Upper and lower limb length equalization: diagnosis, limb lengthening and curtailment, epiphysiodesis
Key Point: Limb lengthening procedures up to 5 cm lead to rapid consolidation and minimal complications. Lengthenings exceeding 5 cm require a good psychological preparation and careful monitoring. In lengthenings more than 10 cm, a faster rate of consolidation requires a double corticotomy, the use of intramedullary fixation and the immobilization of adjacent joints.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22788093/
Quote from: TakingAction on December 31, 2021, 07:14:14 PMHey, pretty sure you're surrounded by me in Florida, and I'm not that greedy lol
There’s a patient whose goal is also 6-6.5 cm on tibias. There’s also a patient who is lengthening both segments at the same time and his goal is 8 cm femur + 5 cm tibia when Dr Paley states 5 cm + 5 cm in his guidebook. 8 cm on femurs isn’t greedy at all in my opinion since most people are able to reach 8 cm.
Quote from: TakingAction on December 31, 2021, 07:05:54 PMYou're right I don't like Dr. Lee's study because I love his study lol, and I want more studies just like his! In fact, I have read one study similar to his studies that shows the correlation between additional height and probability of risk. However, I forgot which medical journal I read, and I couldn't find the web link. That's why I was asking people to see if anyone else who can share web link/studies here so we can all review and understand the risk better in a quantitative/objective way.
P.S. Yes we all know that the 150mph motorcycle is riskier than the 60mph one but how much more are we talking about here? It'd be helpful to know if it's like 1% riskier or 80% riskier because there is actually a tipping point of death rate once the speed reaches 50mph I believe, then the correlation to death increases like exponentially instead of linearly, and that was counterintuitive for me at first when I saw that data. It's almost like the correlation between happiness and annual income is strong until one reaches $75K per year based on a Princeton study a decade ago. There is a diminishing return, which is counterintuitive.
I understand exactly what you are saying but it is impossible to obtain .
You need to take in consideration starting height (the taller the better because of bones/soft tissue length) .
You have to take in consideration if the bone was growing fast or slow and therefore the rate of distraction.
You need to take in consideration the single clinical case in order to understand why someone at 8 had a better result then someone at 6 with the same doctor or it's just a combination of factors mixed altogether .
You need to take into account age , ethnicity, PT (not everyone is diligent) and so many other contributing factors .
In order to determinate if it its exponential or linear a doctor must make follow ups many years after with patient with same method at least , and it's quite hard that someone 2 years post op even bothers to think at such a thing .
Your question (according to me) has no answear also because a healthy 22 yo patient with a relatively tall starting height ,from 6 to 8 has a linear increase of risks because of tot factors while in a 35/40 yo patient with a shorter starting height might have an exponential increase because of other factors playing .
Maybe I am wrong tho so if someone happen to find anything interesting about this topic , It might help a lot because it's an intresting topic.
Quote from: Masteryourlife on December 31, 2021, 07:42:22 PM I understand exactly what you are saying but it is impossible to obtain .
You need to take in consideration starting height (the taller the better because of bones/soft tissue length) .
You have to take in consideration if the bone was growing fast or slow and therefore the rate of distraction.
You need to take in consideration the single clinical case in order to understand why someone at 8 had a better result then someone at 6 with the same doctor or it's just a combination of factors mixed altogether .
You need to take into account age , ethnicity, PT (not everyone is diligent) and so many other contributing factors .
In order to determinate if it its exponential or linear a doctor must make follow ups many years after with patient with same method at least , and it's quite hard that someone 2 years post op even bothers to think at such a thing .
Your question (according to me) has no answear also because a healthy 22 yo patient with a relatively tall starting height ,from 6 to 8 has a linear increase of risks because of tot factors while in a 35/40 yo patient with a shorter starting height might have an exponential increase because of other factors playing .
Maybe I am wrong tho so if someone happen to find anything interesting about this topic , It might help a lot because it's an intresting topic.
I understand that there're many variables, which make the studies very difficult to do. It seems that the following studies show a correlation between the probability of complication and the height gained (based on original height).
Complications in limb-lengthening procedures: a review of 49 cases:
Key Point: The most serious complications occurred in patients with >30% bone lengthening. Patients with <15% lengthening had a significantly decreased complication rate.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11411874/
Quote from: SuchLL on December 31, 2021, 07:25:08 PMThere’s a patient whose goal is also 6-6.5 cm on tibias. There’s also a patient who is lengthening both segments at the same time and his goal is 8 cm femur + 5 cm tibia when Dr Paley states 5 cm + 5 cm in his guidebook. 8 cm on femurs isn’t greedy at all in my opinion since most people are able to reach 8 cm.
Out of curiosity , besides you 2 , how many other patients are doing CLL currently at the Paley institute?
Quote from: Masteryourlife on December 31, 2021, 07:51:12 PMOut of curiosity , besides you 2 , how many other patients are doing CLL currently at the Paley institute?
Last year there’re many CLL patients because of covid and stryde nail. I wasn’t able to count since I kept seeing new faces. This year I’ve only met 10 CLL patients including one also doing arm lengthening. There’s probably more since I only came in the morning, but still can’t compare to last year.
Quote from: TakingAction on December 31, 2021, 07:50:03 PMI understand that there're many variables, which make the studies very difficult to do. It seems that the following studies show a correlation between the probability of complication and the height gained (based on original height).
Complications in limb-lengthening procedures: a review of 49 cases:
Key Point: The most serious complications occurred in patients with >30% bone lengthening. Patients with <15% lengthening had a significantly decreased complication rate.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11411874/
I can't even imagine someone lengthening over 30% of their original bone length. That'd be like 9 inches for me.
Quote from: SuchLL on December 31, 2021, 08:10:31 PMLast year there’re many CLL patients because of covid and stryde nail. I wasn’t able to count since I kept seeing new faces. This year I’ve only met 10 CLL patients including one also doing arm lengthening. There’s probably more since I only came in the morning, but still can’t compare to last year.
Thank you, do you hear any update in there about stryde return ?
Idk like general talks ?!
For the original poster, there aren't many official scientific studies on correlations on amount lengthened and complications or athletic ability. As Masteryourlife stated, it's very unrealistic to have abundant scientific studies on cosmetic leg lengthening patients.
First, I'll start off with the few scientific studies.
You already mentioned this one, which is the most famous one.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5385113/
Excessive tibia lengthening is correlated to higher ipsilateral hip and knee arthritis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26398436/
I've also watched videos of well-respected and credible LL doctors (like Dr Donghoon Lee) saying that higher lengthening correlates to more complications, like less athletic ability. Even if they did not link to an official scientific study, that's all the public has to go by for now.
You must be logged in to post a reply.