MEDICAL DISCLAIMER: The information provided on OrthoLength Pro is for educational purposes only and does not substitute for professional medical advice. Always consult with a qualified orthopedic surgeon.
Posted on Feb 10, 2016, 11:26 pm
#1

After reading a few diaries, I got this (possibly false) impression that people undergone femoral LL retain better athletic ability than tibial LL?

Any ideas?

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 10, 2016, 11:36 pm
#2

I have read a lot of diaries too! I have also met up with people who did LL in my country. People that lengthened up to 6 centimetres in the tibia, got all their athletic ability back. People that lengthened up to 7-8 centimetres in the femur also got their athletic ability back.

Don't anymore than 6 in the tibia or anymore than 8 in the femur or you will lose athletic ability.

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 11, 2016, 12:08 am
#3

Quote from: jaymorgan712 on February 10, 2016, 11:36:29 PMI have read a lot of diaries too! I have also met up with people who did LL in my country. People that lengthened up to 6 centimetres in the tibia, got all their athletic ability back. People that lengthened up to 7-8 centimetres in the femur also got their athletic ability back.

Don't anymore than 6 in the tibia or anymore than 8 in the femur or you will lose athletic ability.


Hey jay I read your post where you said you met with Dr Tetsworth and he said 15% on a segment is ok. Wouldn't it depend on the original height of the patient rather than hard and fast numbers of 6cm for tibia and 8cm for femur?

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 11, 2016, 12:27 am
#4

Yes, that is absolutely correct. He said 15% of whatever your bone length is is the safest thing to do. he also said when you go a millimetres over the 15% mark it starts to get VERY PAINFUL! And you start losing muscle bit by bit.

I could push to 6 centimetres in my tibia, but I'm taking a huge chance of losing a lot of muscle and athletic ability. it happens really quickly.

My tibia length is 37= 5.5 centimetres
My femur length is 48 centimetres= 7.2 centimetres.

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 11, 2016, 12:30 am
#5

Quote from: jaymorgan712 on February 11, 2016, 12:27:27 AMYes, that is absolutely correct. He said 15% of whatever your bone length is is the safest thing to do. he also said when you go a millimetres over the 15% mark it starts to get VERY PAINFUL! And you start losing muscle bit by bit.

I could push to 6 centimetres in my tibia, but I'm taking a huge chance of losing a lot of muscle and athletic ability. it happens really quickly.

My tibia length is 37= 5.5 centimetres
My femur length is 48 centimetres= 7.2 centimetres.


Your previous quote of saying that people who lengthen up to 6cm on tibia and 7-8cm on femur get all their athletic ability back contradicts what you just wrote. Were these other patients taller than you to start with?

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 11, 2016, 12:34 am
#6

No, one was 5'4 and the other one was 5'2. They both did 6 centimetres in the tibia. They were both running and walking extremely well. I did not ask them about their bone length, but they were both doing fine. However, I have seen people that post here saying they did 7 centimetres in the tibia and lost a lot of their muscle/athletic ability.
I'm still sticking with Dr. Tetsworth and staying on the safe side and doing 15% of my bone length, but somehow people can still do 6 centimetres in the tibia and be okay, and people are doing 7-8 centimetres in the femur and claim they are back to normal.

Some doctors believe it has nothing to do with percentage and it has to do with amount. It's hard to say, really. But I will stick to the 15% of bone length idea. It just sounds safe and realistic.

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 11, 2016, 12:47 am
#7

I think the percentage concept makes more sense also. Doing 6cm a far greater amount a 165cm guy than a 180cm guy.

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 11, 2016, 1:01 am
#8

I actually got the impression that lengthening the femurs gave much less appealing recovery than lengthening the Tibia (Could be because the tibia lengthening method exists much longer?)

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 11, 2016, 1:43 am
#9

There is a thread about atheltic recovery, a Dr.(Lee I believe) tracked the recovery of his tibia patients after a couple of year and the result was that only the people who lengthened below 5cm´s got their atletism back.
I actually got the impression that femur patients seem to recover better, this might be caused by the fact that most ppl leave the forum after the procedure and the tibial recovery just takes much longer. A Dr. who does LL for corrective purposes by using the percise nail told me that a 100% recovery after more than 2-3cm´s is impossible and that´s the reason why he woudln´t ever do this for cosmetic purposes.
Edit:
From the people here on the forum only Shyshy recovered really well (and proofed it), Vetpat also said that he regained all of his prior athletism. Most peole lack explosivness and the ability to perform quick movements after LL.

Like (0)
Posted on Feb 11, 2016, 1:47 am
#10

Quote from: jaymorgan712 on February 11, 2016, 12:27:27 AMMy tibia length is 37= 5.5 centimetres
My femur length is 48 centimetres= 7.2 centimetres.

How tall are you?

Like (0)

You must be logged in to post a reply.

Related Topics