Okay, so after a lot of research, I found a study looking at about 800 cosmetic leg lengthening patients, and the average was 42 days/cm detracted. That's fairly in-line with the 1-1.5 months per cm. Of course, LON/LATN is about a quarter of this.
[\quote]
Okay, so after a lot of research, I found a study looking at about 800 cosmetic leg lengthening patients, and the average was 42 days/cm detracted. That's fairly in-line with the 1-1.5 months per cm. Of course, LON/LATN is about a quarter of this.
[/quote]
First of all thanks for your additional research because my dilemma now (reasons elsewhere in the forum) is also pure EF vs LON.
I will avoid any solution based on speed or confort but I understand some people can't just stop their lives for long.
It seems realistic 42 days/cm ("detracted"=lenghtening plus consolidation?). Until 2000 serious doctors only performed CLL to patients until 35 years old average, but now more and more people do it. There are cases up to more than 60 years old, not to speak about 40/45 years old women already in the phase of bone loss and reabsorption. The time of lenghtening and consolidation crucial depends on that so it's natural that average time of lenghtening and consolidation keeps increasing.
But I don't understand how than can come to a year or more.
So, for 6cm with EF, time for both lenghtening and consolidation is around 8 months and 12 days. This is far from "one year or more".
And thus time with frames (elongation time) can be (it's never linear) 84 days with LON. (Allmost 3 months to preserve minimal safety of weight bearing in crutches).
Am I right?
Regarding observations in Paley's handbook, of course 1,5 and 2 days are safer, but this is not the average in industry and historically, weight bearing and light exercise has been promoted precisely to better stimulate natural hardening.If process was normal and there was a good follow up, bone quality is enough for that at the classic rate of 3 days/mm. You can check multiple sources if they are rid of commercial misinformation. Take also into account that Paley doesn't perform CLL since decades and he is an active commercial promoter of the nails he conceived AND has royalties to receive from and discounts for (which nevertheless never benefiting clients...) like Stryde. At the same time he naturally "tends to (di)promote" alternatives. He only uses allmost pure Ilizarov for complications and malformations, which ironically demonstrate its multiversatility and physical stability when done by those among the best surgeons (like him).
Quote from: Thehighest on December 23, 2021, 10:49:21 PMQUOTE: There is serious risk using puré external which is collapse of the regenerate that happen after they removal of the fixator I read that can be as high as 10 per cent.
Have you compared that rate with other, nail methods, in tibias (SOURCES?)? I remember the tragic case of "Unicorn", a nail insertion performed by a 30 year experienced doctor in which halves of the femurs poped up to internal skin surface? The truth is: pure or adapted (Taylor) Ilizarov EF is the saffest in this aspect, if performed with state of the art alloy, an experienced surgeon, with permanent Rx and other (densitometry, etc) follow-up and a totally compliant, carefull patient.
Quote from: zaozari on December 24, 2021, 12:48:05 AMBut that's " Kilokhan" time only (it's only ,1 patient, we would have to consider his bone density, intensity of physiotherapy recovery,etc.), Dr.Solomin and others. The total time tends to be the same (3 days for 1 mm). The thing is that according to some here in the forum, life with LON nails is far from being "normal", not business as usual (mobility, pain, etc), as well as with Ilizarov EF (maybe worse). Let them speak. Is it worth loosing all advantages of Ilizarov?
If you go with Kilokhan figures (and not a real orthopaedic doctor like Dr. Solomin for example) yes you get that timing....and yes it can happen duration for each mm to be different. That's why we should save time for possible delays, complications, etc.
But the classic rule of thumb is still, for an average yough, complying and healthy patient, 3 days with Ilizarov's EF. Some report a bit more for of consolidation problems and earlier stop of lenghtening with LON.
(Sorry, my mistake)
(Sorry everybody, another mistaken post. I am ill in bed, already fever, it seems covid, will stop now using phone)
Quote from: zaozari on December 23, 2021, 11:04:37 PMso is not 2 months is more than 6 months more with pure external
Where the heck have I said it was 2 months for pure externals in total? That is only for elongation of 60 mm (1mm/day), doesn't include consolidation
Here it was my mistake. It's not only 2 months more, it would be theoretically around 4 monthsor slighty more, additionally.
You must be logged in to post a reply.