Hello LL community,
I've been wondering for some time on whether a dual segment LL with small increases is better for the body than a single segment LL with a big increase.
As an example:
If one wanted to lengthen 7-8 cm's, would the body adapt better to small increases in both tibia and femur rather one big increase in femur or tibia.
Furthering the example: Lets go with 7 cm's, would the body adapt better to 3 cm increase in Tibia and 4 cm increase in Femur instead of a big increase of 7 cm in Femur alone?
The drawbacks of this I can see is: 1. Three bones are broken 2. Two surgerys are necessary (more cost) 3. Longer recovery time 4. Bigger risk of developing Fat Embolism? 5. Risk of developing knee pain with Tibia? 6. Higher risk of something going wrong?
However the positives: 1. Smaller soft tissue stretched in one segment 2. Better body mechanics as natural Tibia/Femur ratio is kept
Anyone have some thoughts on this?
Also does anyone know if the risk of developing fat embolism is reduced by lengthening less, or whether it is the actual fracturing of the bones that does it.
/FDR
Related Medical Evidence Peer-Reviewed
Posted on Aug 25, 2017, 8:14 pm
#1
You must be logged in to post a reply.
Related Topics
How about the German guy who did 18cm in livelifetaller now?
Minkowski
2 replies • 1 week ago
Limb lengthening costs in London GP clinics versus private hospitals Which is cheaper
mason_f89
7 replies • 2 weeks ago
Limb lengthening surgery above 40: Is it still a viable option for height increase
sofia2000
7 replies • 3 weeks ago
Stryde Nail 2024 Results: Is This the Future of Femur Lengthening Surgery
mike_t
7 replies • 3 weeks ago
Precice Stryde nail vs traditional lengthening methods which is safer
victoria1991
7 replies • 3 weeks ago
Precice nail surgical technique: Does it outperform LON method for femur lengthening
owen_b
7 replies • 3 weeks ago