Limb Lengthening Forum
Community Hangout => Off Topic => Topic started by: .. on May 20, 2018, 06:49:39 PM
-
I remember I actually discovered LL for the first time in 2011 and it took me 7 years to muster up the courage and made up my mind. I was in denial and fooled myself into thinking that there will be a point in my life where I come to terms with my height and refused to accept LL as a solution. But I recently realize that it has always been inevitable that I eventually settle for the surgery. I even feel like I want to do it sooner that I thought I would. Sometimes I feel that I should have started saving earlier.
Doing LL would feel like going into a suicide mission for me. I kept asking myself what if I die, what if I lose a leg. My life would be a complete failure.
At least if I die, my parents would feel regret for overlooking my well-being and growth. Secondly, I'd still show to everyone that I never gave up eventhough life constantly tried to bring me down. Those are pretty good points to make. It will be like going to war and end up getting shot.
At this point I don't even think that not doing the surgery is an option for me. I only have one life and this is the only way to redeem myself. It will be a win-win situation for me.
-
Good for you, man!
-
Sounds good Bruce. It can definitely take years to come to terms with something like CLL.
There's always a risk when you take action, but the odds are in your favor. Some parts of it will be hell, but it's only a stop on the way to your destination.
-
Good for you, man!
Thanks man.
Sounds good Bruce. It can definitely take years to come to terms with something like CLL.
There's always a risk when you take action, but the odds are in your favor. Some parts of it will be hell, but it's only a stop on the way to your destination.
Thanks, Android. I often lack the courage to do what's necessary. But remaining the height I am for the rest of my life is the biggest horror I have in my life.
-
I think you're very pessimistic in your post. Something would have to go catastrophically wrong to need amputation or dying from fat embolism from getting a fracture. I just don't see it as a big issue considering if you go to a top doctor the chances are probably like getting hit by a car.
Over 17,000 lengthening surgeries by Dr Paley.
The vast majority being non-CLL but no deaths or amputations (I think) in this 17k sample means I am not that worried.
-
I think you're very pessimistic in your post. Something would have to go catastrophically wrong to need amputation or dying from fat embolism from getting a fracture. I just don't see it as a big issue considering if you go to a top doctor the chances are probably like getting hit by a car.
Over 17,000 lengthening surgeries by Dr Paley.
The vast majority being non-CLL but no deaths or amputations (I think) in this 17k sample means I am not that worried.
The problem is most of these 17k are unilateral external tibia which is very safe. Out of 250 CLL (femurs and tibias), Dr Paley had 4 patients who get fat embolism all from internal femurs.
I'm also not sure I will have that kind of money. Probably I will settle for external tibias with Giotikas or Parihar. Cheap and much safer!
-
Interesting, is this why you are choosing external tibia?
I found a small sample satisfaction quiz on the two and it seems patients prefer internal (very small sample so..): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26688988
-
Interesting, is this why you are choosing external tibia?
I found a small sample satisfaction quiz on the two and it seems patients prefer internal (very small sample so..): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26688988
Yeah, safety and affordability are the main reasons. It's been said to be the least invasive and safest form of LL.
But the paper mentioned "better cosmetic appearence", I disagree (assuming we do femurs if we do internal). Hiding scars is easy, but proportions-wise, longer femur isn't very aesthetic. I just realize raising the knee level is pretty important for the looks.
However, the advantage of internal femur is the possibility of lengthening extra 1-2cm. I'm pretty confused also.
I'm guessing the patients who responded to the questionnaire preferred internal due to convenience and overlooked how invasive and the possible long-term effects. Anyway, those patients made it alive post-LL and obviously couldn't realize the danger they were in.
-
Yeah, safety and affordability are the main reasons. It's been said to be the least invasive and safest form of LL.
But the paper mentioned "better cosmetic appearence", I disagree (assuming we do femurs if we do internal). Hiding scars is easy, but proportions-wise, longer femur isn't very aesthetic. I just realize raising the knee level is pretty important for the looks.
However, the advantage of internal femur is the possibility of lengthening extra 1-2cm. I'm pretty confused also.
I'm guessing the patients who responded to the questionnaire preferred internal due to convenience and overlooked how invasive and the possible long-term effects. Anyway, those patients made it alive post-LL and obviously couldn't realize the danger they were in.
I personally would rather have big scars and slightly low knees than be my own height as would most here.
-
I personally would rather have big scars and slightly low knees than be my own height as would most here.
I was comparing tibia lengthening to femur lengthening. In your case, would you choose the safest and least invasive LL method that would get you to 177cm with higher knee or the more invasive and dangerous LL (that has caused a number of fat embolism cases) that would get you to 179cm with lower knee?
-
I was comparing tibia lengthening to femur lengthening. In your case, would you choose the safest and least invasive LL method that would get you to 177cm with higher knee or the more invasive and dangerous LL (that has caused a number of fat embolism cases) that would get you to 179cm with lower knee?
I'd choose the safest and get myself to 177cm. 7cm with minimal risks? Sounds great to me. That would be a dream scenario for most.
-
Yeah, safety and affordability are the main reasons. It's been said to be the least invasive and safest form of LL.
But the paper mentioned "better cosmetic appearence", I disagree (assuming we do femurs if we do internal). Hiding scars is easy, but proportions-wise, longer femur isn't very aesthetic. I just realize raising the knee level is pretty important for the looks.
However, the advantage of internal femur is the possibility of lengthening extra 1-2cm. I'm pretty confused also.
I'm guessing the patients who responded to the questionnaire preferred internal due to convenience and overlooked how invasive and the possible long-term effects. Anyway, those patients made it alive post-LL and obviously couldn't realize the danger they were in.
Not going to argue about internals vs externals, but you should read this if you're planning externals. Lots of details covered, and most apply to adults, as well.
https://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5145837
-
Not going to argue about internals vs externals, but you should read this if you're planning externals. Lots of details covered, and most apply to adults, as well.
https://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5145837
Thanks man. I guess each method has its own disadvantages, but the risks should be quite minimum with external method overall. Maybe you're right afterall that we should avoid India due to sanitary conditions that are not optimal and could double the chances of PTI.
-
hello bruce, I see myself in your presentation, the discomfort described by you is common to most of all of us who are here in hopes of redeeming our lives. anyway I wrote you a personal message. in any case the internal femur risks would be the same even with Stryde? With stryde the movement and recovery in walking should be early making it more difficult to atrophy the limbs without a detachment period in which the patient does not walk for 3 4 months .. should bring more benefits no? after this would you still recommend external shins? with the discomfort they entail in recovery and pain? despite the risks of fat embolism being at a minimum? thank you