Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

None

8 (21.1%)

1/4" to 1/2" (.64cm to 1.27 cm)

1 (2.6%)

1/2" to 1" (1.27 cm to 2.54 cm)

3 (7.9%)

1" to 1.5" (2.54 cm to 3.81 cm)

8 (21.1%)

1.5" to 2" (3.81 cm to 5.08 cm)

18 (47.4%)

Total Members Voted: 38

[2please]

To be completely transparent,  I am 5'10 1/4" tall without shoes (about 178.5 cm). I'm by no means short but rather I am probably spot on the mean average height for American men. Having said that, I've considered the prospect of LL surgery on and off for the past couple years now. As indicated by the subject of this thread, if I were to move forward with LL surgery I would take a  conservative (as conservative as having four major bones voluntarily broken can be) approach. What I would hypothetically pursue would be an added one inch to each tibia as well as an additional one inch to each femur, totaling 2 inches (roughly 5 cm in height increase). This would put me at roughly 6'0 1/4" or about 183 cm.

Let's assume I am fully comfortable with the lengthy amount of time required for this quadrilateral surgery (9 months for complete healing of tibia and 9 additional months for complete healing of femur bones, 18 months total). Sacrificing a year and a half or even up to 2 years is not my concern, after all, from the research I've gathered it seems like only about 6-8 months of that time I wouldn't be able to walk.

My bigger concern would be the prospect of losing athleticism to the extent that I would be unable to full recover it. I've read the countless anecdotes of LL patients becoming significantly less athletic subsequent to their LL surgeries, however, these patients typically received an increase of 2-3 inches on JUST the tibia or femur, some of whom went above 3 inches per bone.

I'm 27 years old, physically fit (about 180 lbs) and work out regularly. I lift weights 4 times per week, I play pick up basketball almost weekly, and golf all season when it's warm. Years ago when I ran track I actually ran a personal best 10.91 100 meter time although now I'm probably closer to mid 11's. I would not want to sacrifice my ability to perform any of these things at a high level beyond the roughly 2 years it would take to make a full recovery from quadrilateral LL surgery. I would have no problem fully immersing myself in the rehabilitation process following the surgeries and would challenge myself to make a complete recovery.

I welcome and would truly appreciate any insight from members of the forum and although I'd really appreciate any opinions, if you could, please disregard the psychological aspect of this matter when replying. I accept that I suffer from some level of height dysmorphia and that my vanity is probably annoying to many. Although I've never felt short per se, I've always felt like I am a couple inches from my ideal height. Actually I would happily take 6'2" or 6'3" but that's completely out of the question if I am to stay within my goal of retaining my full athletic ability. What I'm really looking for is positive or negative opinions in regard to my theory that losing a negligible (or no) amount of athleticism after undergoing quadrilateral LL surgery whereby only up to 1 inch (2.25 to 2.5 cm) was added to each tibia and femur, is feasible.

[TIBIKE200]

There is one guy here who did 2.5-3cm on his tibias so you can contact him.

 To be honest, I doubt that you will be able to retain full athletic abilities as even a simple fracture can cause athletes to lose their abilities to some degree...

 If you functionality is so important to you, I will resort to lifts instead of this surgery

[2please]

I've broken my left ankle and fractured a vertebrae in my lower back and each time made a full recover (no noticeable loss in athletic ability). I'm not sure an injury like I just I mentioned and a broken tibia or femur is analogous but I appreciate the consideration. I just seems to me that the muscle tissue in my legs would be able to sufficiently accommodate a corresponding 1 inch increase in bone length. Unless there is something different between the nature of a typical tibia fracture and an elective LL break, I'm not sure what I am missing. Is there something different between the nature of the two? There's numerous studies that indicate a fractured bone is no more or less likely to be injured again.

[Bander72]

I've broken my left ankle and fractured a vertebrae in my lower back and each time made a full recover (no noticeable loss in athletic ability). I'm not sure an injury like I just I mentioned and a broken tibia or femur is analogous but I appreciate the consideration. I just seems to me that the muscle tissue in my legs would be able to sufficiently accommodate a corresponding 1 inch increase in bone length. Unless there is something different between the nature of a typical tibia fracture and an elective LL break, I'm not sure what I am missing. Is there something different between the nature of the two? There's numerous studies that indicate a fractured bone is no more or less likely to be injured again.

Would you really  be willing to do it for 1 inch though?  Even at 4 cm im wondering if it would all be worth it but I defitnely would not  do this surgery for one inch.

[682]

I'm not sure what I am missing. Is there something different between the nature of the two? There's numerous studies that indicate a fractured bone is no more or less likely to be injured again.

The unnatural and permanent stretching of soft tissue beyond its natural capability and the damage that comes with it. Your post makes me think that you believe you will be the exception to the rule, that all of the poor results are solely from over lengthening which is true to a point, but as far as we know any lengthening will lead to some decrease in athletic ability, including an inch.

[jojo]

we just had a guy who said he was back to 95% normal

[2please]

The unnatural and permanent stretching of soft tissue beyond its natural capability and the damage that comes with it. Your post makes me think that you believe you will be the exception to the rule, that all of the poor results are solely from over lengthening which is true to a point, but as far as we know any lengthening will lead to some decrease in athletic ability, including an inch.

It's not that I think I'm the exception to the rule, I'm just trying to figure out to what extent can soft tissue stretch but still be within that person's natural biomechanical limits before it exceeds whatever that limit is and athletic performance suffers as result. I understand there will be some (at least initially) unnatural stretching of soft tissue near the newly acquired increase in bone length but I'm not sure we can definitively say that the surrounding soft tissue won't be able to fully recover and assimilate into the new environment. There must be a point where someone would go from no or very little drop off in physical performance to a significant drop off in physical performance. Is this amount 1/4"? 1/2" of tibial/femoral length? Is it 1"? 2"?

It's difficult to say because basically ALL of the anecdotal evidence we have is of people lengthening bones by 2-3.5 inches. I personally haven't come across a scenario where somebody had only lengthened their tibia and/or femur 1 inch, which is understandable since the vast majority of people undergoing these extreme operations are less concerned with long term athletic performance and are much more concerned with attaining what they feel is an adequate vertical height.

We know that the bone itself heals completely and the likelihood of further injury to the bone is not any greater or lesser than prior to the surgery. For me at least it's difficult to imagine there isn't some level of acceptable soft tissue stretching that the body can accommodate before approaching permanently diminished athletic performance.

[Bander72]

I heard Paley had some people that did a inch but too bad they don't visit the forum.

[jbc]

You will not be able to recover 100% athletically. Multiple doctors stated this, with Dr. Birkholtz stating explicitly that the maximum lengthening amount in order to fully recover athletically is zero (mods, since this question comes up so much, I wonder if that part of Dr. Birkholtz' answer can/should be stickied somewhere). Dr. Paley told me the same thing during my consult. He did state that I will get close, with a lot of hard work, but 100% is out of the question. It's not only tissue that stretches, your body mechanics, levers, center of gravity and range of motion are affected by the additional increase in height.

Everything in life has tradeoffs. This is one. Is the extra height worth losing some athletic ability? Only you can answer that. Best of luck with your decision.

[Taciturn]

This is where you make a compromise. You want more height, but you also want to retain your complete athletic ability. I'm sorry, I want the same, but it just won't happen. To some extent, you'll inevitably lose some physical capability. However, I'm sure you can return up to 90% of your abilities with physical therapy and consistent training for years after surgery. So, what do you choose? I'm 6'1", and had a dream height of 6'5", however, people here didn't really take me seriously, weren't understanding, and totally disregarded my height dysmorphia. They think my life is all set, and I'm just blaming my height for any failure or insecurity I have, which isn't true. Besides, EVEN IF you were able to retain 100% of your athletic ability, is it really worth it to break your bones, stretch nerves and muscle for extended periods of time for a gain of one inch in each bone? That's just a waste of time and money, and the physical and mental trauma will far outweigh the height gain you'll get from surgery, again, even if you were as athletically capable as you once were prior to surgery. If you feel like your life is very revolved around athleticism, can't let anything hinder your athletic performance even a 1%, and your career depends on it, don't do it. On the other hand, if you do it just for fun, to stay in shape, and you care more about your upper body strength and your vertical height, I think the height increase (by that I mean a bigger height increase than what you said. 2 inches on each bone is more worth it) will be more worth it in the long-run. Think about it.

[nikolas86]

I know this is gonna sound crazy but how about keeping the tibia/femur ratio the same and get 5 cm gain in total.. for example you have 30 cm femur and 40 cm tibia and if u grow  2.85 cm in femur and 3.15 cm tibia then you will keep the 3/4 ratio of your tibia/femur which keeps your lower body ratio the same.

[nikolas86]

I know this is gonna sound crazy but how about keeping the tibia/femur ratio the same and get 5 cm gain in total.. for example you have 30 cm femur and 40 cm tibia and if u grow  2.85 cm in femur and 3.15 cm tibia then you will keep the 3/4 ratio of your tibia/femur which keeps your lower body ratio the same.

I meant 2.15 femur, 2.85 tibia 

[Bander72]

That's good if you're a millionaire and can afford two surgeries for those small amounts.

[nikolas86]

That's good if you're a millionaire and can afford two surgeries for those small amounts.

I don't think you should be a millionaire, there are people who did 2 surgeries in this form. Of course it will cost more money and time to you but it is worth it.. to reduce the risks to minimum(soft tissue issues, body mechanics, body balance etc..)

[682]

I know this is gonna sound crazy but how about keeping the tibia/femur ratio the same and get 5 cm gain in total.. for example you have 30 cm femur and 40 cm tibia and if u grow  2.85 cm in femur and 3.15 cm tibia then you will keep the 3/4 ratio of your tibia/femur which keeps your lower body ratio the same.

It doesn't sound crazy at all, in fact, I believe this to be the most optimal method of maintaining biomechanical ratio within the 'normal range' while not lengthening either segment excessively. Beyond the initial risks of 2 surgeries, lengthening both segments to a specific amount will always be better than solely lengthening one segment to the same amount. Unfortunately, most people do not have the finances nor want to undergo 2 surgeries leading to excessive lengthening of one segment, throwing their ratio out of the 'normal range'.

Also, in case you weren't aware the femur is the longest bone in the body and the tibia is shorter so your theoretical amounts would be correct if switched around, this is why it's almost always better to lengthen the femur if you choose to only lengthen one segment.

[Bander72]

I don't think you should be a millionaire, there are people who did 2 surgeries in this form. Of course it will cost more money and time to you but it is worth it.. to reduce the risks to minimum(soft tissue issues, body mechanics, body balance etc..)

Break your legs twice for  5 cm.....Im one of the conservative  ones in the forum and even  I think  its ridiculous. At least  if you could get back to 100% before the surgery but we know thay aint possible so who would really do that. For two surgerys im gonna go for 4 inches minimum.

[0184946]

I heard Paley had some people that did a inch but too bad they don't visit the forum.

paying 100,000 for a inch that's crazy. Could've atleast gone with birkholtz or something

[Body Builder]

Anyone who plans to do less than 5cm with one LL should stop thinking about LL and continue his life with some added lifts.
1 inch is so minor that is hardly recognizable and it is completely insane to break your legs for that, no matter how much money you have.
After all the ones who really need LL to improve their lives know that so small amounts are ridiculous and won't change anything so they go for at least 2 inches.
Everything less is only a loss of money, time and still has many risks without a real benefit.

[nikolas86]

Anyone who plans to do less than 5cm with one LL should stop thinking about LL and continue his life with some added lifts.
1 inch is so minor that is hardly recognizable and it is completely insane to break your legs for that, no matter how much money you have.
After all the ones who really need LL to improve their lives know that so small amounts are ridiculous and won't change anything so they go for at least 2 inches.
Everything less is only a loss of money, time and still has many risks without a real benefit.

2 inches = 5.08 cm

What we are talking about here is 5cm( 0.08 cm lesser than 2")
I think 2 inches makes huge difference if you are 5'11"
It makes you 6'1"

[682]

Break your legs twice for  5 cm.....Im one of the conservative  ones in the forum and even  I think  its ridiculous. At least  if you could get back to 100% before the surgery but we know thay aint possible so who would really do that. For two surgerys im gonna go for 4 inches minimum.

Electing to have your legs surgically sawed and broken in half and a rod reamed through the centre for cosmetic lengthening of any amount is ridiculous. While I agree that one should aim to gain an amount which they would consider worthwhile if they are considering undergoing such a traumatic, time consuming, expensive and extreme procedure, but that varies largely from person to person, therefore I think it would be wise to not conflate what you deem worthwhile with what someone else may perceive as such. The best amount is the lowest you would be content with.

Now, addressing your other point, if the absolute minimum you wish to lengthen is 4 inches/10.16CM, then you aren't conservative in your lengthening, even if some people choose to lengthen way beyond that. 5/6CM on the tibias/femurs respectively is usually the maximum recommended for a relatively safe and complication free and 4 inches is at that very upper limit.

paying 100,000 for a inch that's crazy. Could've atleast gone with birkholtz or something

You do realize that peoples financial situations aren't all the same and the price of the procedure is relative to the person deciding to undergo it? $100,000 to one person may be a lot, to another, absolutely nothing. If someone has the finances and is willing to spend it then why wouldn't they choose to go with one of the most accomplished orthopedic surgeons in the world who is likely in the same country to achieve their goals? I don't believe amount lengthened should dictate surgeon choice, regardless of amount, one should choose the surgeon they feel most comfortable with.

Anyone who plans to do less than 5cm with one LL should stop thinking about LL and continue his life with some added lifts.
1 inch is so minor that is hardly recognizable and it is completely insane to break your legs for that, no matter how much money you have.
After all the ones who really need LL to improve their lives know that so small amounts are ridiculous and won't change anything so they go for at least 2 inches.
Everything less is only a loss of money, time and still has many risks without a real benefit.

Anyone considering limb lengthening should stop thinking about limb lengthening and continue their life with lifts. But as you know, this isn't always the case.

I'd argue that while I believe an inch on either segment, resulting in 2 inches of height should be the very least someone should aim for after such an expensive, time consuming, painful and dangerous procedure, I disagree that it is 'minor and hardly recognizable'. 2 inches is still a substantial amount and if that is somebody's goal for whatever reason, nobody has the right to judge and criticize because their goal and priorities are different.

As I wrote earlier, electing to have your legs surgically sawed and broken in half and a rod reamed through the center for cosmetic lengthening of any amount is insane whether it's for an inch or ten. We could argue until the end of time concerning what specific amount would make the procedure 'worth it' but at the end, it all comes down to what the person considering the procedure deems acceptable and worthwhile. Your goals won't be the same as someone else's, that doesn't mean either of your goals are 'right' or 'wrong'.

[Chris]

Anyone who plans to do less than 5cm with one LL should stop thinking about LL and continue his life with some added lifts.
1 inch is so minor that is hardly recognizable and it is completely insane to break your legs for that, no matter how much money you have.
After all the ones who really need LL to improve their lives know that so small amounts are ridiculous and won't change anything so they go for at least 2 inches.
Everything less is only a loss of money, time and still has many risks without a real benefit.

1 inch is very much noticeable by everyone closer to your original height. I can tell you first hand. It's just the tall guys who can't see any difference, because they see you from a much smaller angle than the people around your initial height.
But personally, I agree that it would be totally insane to break your legs for this amount.
I would never EVER have done LL purposely for just one inch. 4/5cm in one segment is a really good goal. It shouldn't be more and it shouldn't be less either.



 

[0184946]

You do realize that peoples financial situations aren't all the same and the price of the procedure is relative to the person deciding to undergo it? $100,000 to one person may be a lot, to another, absolutely nothing. If someone has the finances and is willing to spend it then why wouldn't they choose to go with one of the most accomplished orthopedic surgeons in the world who is likely in the same country to achieve their goals? I don't believe amount lengthened should dictate surgeon choice, regardless of amount, one should choose the surgeon they feel most comfortable with.

No, Even if I was a millionaire i wouldn't drop that much money for a inch but that's just me though. And amount lengthened should dictate surgeon choice because if your lengthening one inch chances are you won't run into any problem so why pay more for the same result?

[Bander72]

Electing to have your legs surgically sawed and broken in half and a rod reamed through the centre for cosmetic lengthening of any amount is ridiculous. While I agree that one should aim to gain an amount which they would consider worthwhile if they are considering undergoing such a traumatic, time consuming, expensive and extreme procedure, but that varies largely from person to person, therefore I think it would be wise to not conflate what you deem worthwhile with what someone else may perceive as such. The best amount is the lowest you would be content with.

Now, addressing your other point, if the absolute minimum you wish to lengthen is 4 inches/10.16CM, then you aren't conservative in your lengthening, even if some people choose to lengthen way beyond that. 5/6CM on the tibias/femurs respectively is usually the maximum recommended for a relatively safe and complication free and 4 inches is at that very upper limit.

You do realize that peoples financial situations aren't all the same and the price of the procedure is relative to the person deciding to undergo it? $100,000 to one person may be a lot, to another, absolutely nothing. If someone has the finances and is willing to spend it then why wouldn't they choose to go with one of the most accomplished orthopedic surgeons in the world who is likely in the same country to achieve their goals? I don't believe amount lengthened should dictate surgeon choice, regardless of amount, one should choose the surgeon they feel most comfortable with.

Anyone considering limb lengthening should stop thinking about limb lengthening and continue their life with lifts. But as you know, this isn't always the case.

I'd argue that while I believe an inch on either segment, resulting in 2 inches of height should be the very least someone should aim for after such an expensive, time consuming, painful and dangerous procedure, I disagree that it is 'minor and hardly recognizable'. 2 inches is still a substantial amount and if that is somebody's goal for whatever reason, nobody has the right to judge and criticize because their goal and priorities are different.

As I wrote earlier, electing to have your legs surgically sawed and broken in half and a rod reamed through the center for cosmetic lengthening of any amount is insane whether it's for an inch or ten. We could argue until the end of time concerning what specific amount would make the procedure 'worth it' but at the end, it all comes down to what the person considering the procedure deems acceptable and worthwhile. Your goals won't be the same as someone else's, that doesn't mean either of your goals are 'right' or 'wrong'.

Im planing  to do 4 cm if I do externals. I was saying if I was doing 2 surgerys and not 1 then at minimum I would 5 cm each because in my opinion thats too much time, pain and money spent for only 5 cm.

[Iamready]

4 cm is good and totally noticeable. 

[682]

No, Even if I was a millionaire i wouldn't drop that much money for a inch but that's just me though. And amount lengthened should dictate surgeon choice because if your lengthening one inch chances are you won't run into any problem so why pay more for the same result?

The bolded section is the operative part. I completely disagree with you about surgeon choice but that's fine, I personally believe the best doctor should be chosen if the funds allow it regardless of length, the surgery itself is serious and the quality of the surgery/method do have an effect - I would rather mitigate as much risk as possible.

4 cm is good and totally noticeable. 

I completely agree Iamready. If somebody suddenly grew almost 2 inches, no doubt would it be noticeable.

[Fnyc]

Electing to have your legs surgically sawed and broken in half and a rod reamed through the centre for cosmetic lengthening of any amount is ridiculous. While I agree that one should aim to gain an amount which they would consider worthwhile if they are considering undergoing such a traumatic, time consuming, expensive and extreme procedure, but that varies largely from person to person, therefore I think it would be wise to not conflate what you deem worthwhile with what someone else may perceive as such. The best amount is the lowest you would be content with.

Now, addressing your other point, if the absolute minimum you wish to lengthen is 4 inches/10.16CM, then you aren't conservative in your lengthening, even if some people choose to lengthen way beyond that. 5/6CM on the tibias/femurs respectively is usually the maximum recommended for a relatively safe and complication free and 4 inches is at that very upper limit.

You do realize that peoples financial situations aren't all the same and the price of the procedure is relative to the person deciding to undergo it? $100,000 to one person may be a lot, to another, absolutely nothing. If someone has the finances and is willing to spend it then why wouldn't they choose to go with one of the most accomplished orthopedic surgeons in the world who is likely in the same country to achieve their goals? I don't believe amount lengthened should dictate surgeon choice, regardless of amount, one should choose the surgeon they feel most comfortable with.

Anyone considering limb lengthening should stop thinking about limb lengthening and continue their life with lifts. But as you know, this isn't always the case.

I'd argue that while I believe an inch on either segment, resulting in 2 inches of height should be the very least someone should aim for after such an expensive, time consuming, painful and dangerous procedure, I disagree that it is 'minor and hardly recognizable'. 2 inches is still a substantial amount and if that is somebody's goal for whatever reason, nobody has the right to judge and criticize because their goal and priorities are different.

As I wrote earlier, electing to have your legs surgically sawed and broken in half and a rod reamed through the center for cosmetic lengthening of any amount is insane whether it's for an inch or ten. We could argue until the end of time concerning what specific amount would make the procedure 'worth it' but at the end, it all comes down to what the person considering the procedure deems acceptable and worthwhile. Your goals won't be the same as someone else's, that doesn't mean either of your goals are 'right' or 'wrong'.

What would you say to someone that would go from 5'8 to being tall enough to pursue their dream of a modeling career? It might not pan out and I won't have the money for a while but its still better than saying it was for another life.

[682]

.

[682]

What would you say to someone that would go from 5'8 to being tall enough to pursue their dream of a modeling career? It might not pan out and I won't have the money for a while but its still better than saying it was for another life.

I would tell them to thoroughly research every aspect of limb lengthening, understand the severity of the procedure including the inconvenience, time, pain, money, possible long term health issues, loss of athleticism, years of physical therapy... etc., consider the very real possibility of serious complications, truly consider if it is worth electing to undergo such an extreme procedure on perfectly healthy limbs and the definite loss of athletic potential for a few inches of height, try to resolve the issues and come to terms with their height with the help of a therapist if needed.

If after all of this, that person is realistic on what is and isn't achievable from lengthening and the risks and trade off that goes with it and was still intent on undergoing the procedure, I would advise they research further, physically and mentally prepare themselves, take time to save the finances to undergo the procedure with the best surgeon they can afford in the safest manner possible without taking needless risk and cutting corners to save money, lengthen a conservative amount at a reasonable rate in hopes of a satisfactory outcome.

[jbc]

It really surprises me that people fail to register the simple fact that the best way to not lose athletic ability is not to lengthen. Period. However, since this seems to be a circular argument (doubtful that this will stop it, but I'll attempt it at any rate), here goes:

Athletes of any kind, from recreational children's teams to professional players that have hundred million dollar contracts do everything in their power to NOT get hurt. At the highest levels, athletes get taken out of games and put on injured reserves for small sprains. Larger injuries, and you're out for 4-6 weeks. Ligament tear, you're looking at a year out.

With CLL, you're breaking - re-read that for emphasis please - breaking, both legs, skewing not only your biomechanical ratio (yes, if you lengthen all 4 segments, you can offset this some, but not completely, as you also throw off overall body proportions as well as your natural equilibrium and center of gravity), stretching soft tissue beyond its normal biological  capabilities, reducing your range of motion in at least your lower extremities. In terms of total recovery, you're setting yourself back by at least 1.5 years. That is best case scenario, with zero complications.

Let's assume you hit best case scenario with zero complications. You've lost 1.5 years of practice, muscle endurance, aerobic/anaerobic capacity, motor reflex, hand/eye coordination, strength, power, etc. I could go on and on.

Take a simple sport like running. Let's say you're a recreational runner, and you're running a 9 minute mile over an average of 5 miles. If you stop running for 2 months, you will not be able to run those times. Full stop. You'll have to re-train just to get back to that level. Now let's say you undergo CLL, you are lucky and hit best-case scenario in terms of recovery, but you've stretched ligaments, muscles, nerves beyond their natural biological capabilities as related to your particular, unique body, you've offset your equilibrium, center of gravity and biomechanical ratios, and you've aged 1.5 years. Do you reasonably think you'll be able to run the same times as before? Do you think you'll ever be able to improve upon those times? Answer is no.

This is not a hard calculation to make. Just apply some simple logic and you'll get to the same results. This is not knee surgery to repair a torn meniscus or ligament. This is a complicated surgery where serious tradeoffs are made, with diminished athletic ability being one. I won't judge you for opting in. I participate in several sports, two competitively, one at a fairly high level. I have a good starting height - not 6', but not 5'4", and I believe everyone deserves to be happy, and if this makes you happy, regardless of your starting height, do the surgery. It's why I'm doing it. I'm prepared to hang up both sports - I do them for fun anyway - recover as well as I can, and just be content with being physically fit and in good shape for the rest of my life.

Let's face it, most people are recreational athletes anyway. No serious professional athlete would ever consider this. It would mean a loss of their career, instantly.

So don't expect the surgery to produce both additional height and to get you back to where you were athletically. It just isn't possible. Multiple Drs. have confirmed this. So does common sense and logic. Yet this question repeatedly comes up. Regardless of how bad you want both things, you can't have them. So reason and think this through and see whether CLL is for you, and what you are willing to give up in return for 3 inches in height. Read through diaries of patients who didn't have a stellar outcome - there are plenty here. The best case scenario generally only happens only under the best of physicians, the best of care, and lots and lots of preparation. All of which cost time and in the case of this procedure, a lot of money. And with that, your best case outcome is good consolidation with no complications, physical recovery after 1.5 years or so, a normal walking gait, and return to activity - but that's it.

And last - if your athletic performance is really that important to you, stay healthy, avoid injury, train smart, and always do your best to stay away from the surgeon's knife, whether it's this, or any other surgery.