Limb Lengthening Forum
Limb Lengthening Surgery => Limb Lengthening Discussions => Topic started by: Sky is the Limit on October 30, 2022, 07:16:21 PM
-
Hello!
I am 183-184 cm tall. This equals 6 ft - 6 ft 0.5 inches. I am planning on doing a quadrilateral lengthening of both my femurs and tibias at the same time. The plan is to lengthen the femurs with around 5.5-6 cm and the tibias with around 4-4.5 cm, with a total of 10 cm. These numbers are rough estimates. The lengthening ratio between the femurs and tibias may still be adjusted in accordance to the present ratios of the current lengths of my bones.
The best alternative would be to lengthen my femurs with STRYDE/Precise nail and the tibias with the LON method. The reason why I want to do quadrilateral lengthening is to keep my biomechanics as intact as possible, which, in turn, would also be beneficial for preserving my athletic ability as much as possible.
Since I have a good base to start from, I think that a quadrilateral lengthening procedure with the lengthening amounts I am planning to do (10 cm max) can be performed quite safely. As soon as I have allocated the financial base for my lengthening procedure, I am ready to go through with the whole thing.
What are your thoughts on doing quadrilateral lengthening for a person with my height and height goal? Are there anyone else like me who are planning to do the same kind of lengthening?
Thanks!
-
Where are you planing to do this surgery brother
-
Hello!
I am 183-184 cm tall. This equals 6 ft - 6 ft 0.5 inches. I am planning on doing a quadrilateral lengthening of both my femurs and tibias at the same time. The plan is to lengthen the femurs with around 5.5-6 cm and the tibias with around 4-4.5 cm, with a total of 10 cm. These numbers are rough estimates. The lengthening ratio between the femurs and tibias may still be adjusted in accordance to the present ratios of the current lengths of my bones.
The best alternative would be to lengthen my femurs with STRYDE/Precise nail and the tibias with the LON method. The reason why I want to do quadrilateral lengthening is to keep my biomechanics as intact as possible, which, in turn, would also be beneficial for preserving my athletic ability as much as possible.
Since I have a good base to start from, I think that a quadrilateral lengthening procedure with the lengthening amounts I am planning to do (10 cm max) can be performed quite safely. As soon as I have allocated the financial base for my lengthening procedure, I am ready to go through with the whole thing.
What are your thoughts on doing quadrilateral lengthening for a person with my height and height goal? Are there anyone else like me who are planning to do the same kind of lengthening?
Thanks!
I would say max 2.5". You'll be in the golden zone for height (The truest chart known to man is the bodybuilding Manlet chart idc what anyone else says). But you can go 4" if you think it's necessary, but after 6'2 I think you won't find a great advantage.
-
Idk if it would be worth it doing this surgery at your height especially doing 10cm. You’re at a good height, above average, so it doesn’t make sense to me as why you want this surgery.
Anyways I would stick to doing one surgery. I don’t remember anyone at your height doing this surgery, I think the tallest I’ve heard of is that one guy who was 5’11” and went with paley. I remember paley mentioning it somewhere maybe on his website.
-
I think its ridiculous you're taking time out of your life to get this surgery. You're already tall. This is not a physical problem its a mental issue that likely wont be fixed with medical intervention. Go to therapy and avoid breaking your legs and years of wasted time and money.
-
I am still not sure. Initially I have had the Betz institute in Germany in my mind. However, since I am going to do quite moderate lengthenings in comparison to my initial bone lengths, I am also open to do it in Greece or Turkey. Of course Paley institute would be the best and safest choice.
-
LOL this surgery getting out of control, but I respect you brother. wish you to best luck.
-
Quadri for 3-4 inches is a bad idea.
-
Would you care to share the reason for this? What is it that is specifically bad about doing quadri for 3-4 inches? I've read that quadrilateral lengthening is a good option if you want to lengthen both segments for no more than 10 cm in total (note that the maximum amount of lengthening (10 cm) is set for people with a much lower starting height). To me, this is the most cost effective alternative in regard to both money and time spent with the lengthening procedure.
-
I live in a Nordic country. A fair good amount of people are on the upper end of the height curve where I live. It has been a dream for me for a very long time now to walk around with a vertical stature height of about 6'3-6'4." Knowing that there is a possibility of correcting my height to what it should be gives me hope. With hope comes happiness.
-
I am still not sure. Initially I have had the Betz institute in Germany in my mind. However, since I am going to do quite moderate lengthenings in comparison to my initial bone lengths, I am also open to do it in Greece or Turkey. Of course Paley institute would be the best and safest choice.
I'm researching too a place to do my surgery. Betz doesn't do quadrilateral surgery. I don't know Greece.
So in Turkey i spoke with Wannabetaller, LiveLifeTaller, LimbLengtheningCenter, AFA, Lengthening Turkey and Dr Yuksel.
There are only three companies offers quadrilateral surgery in Turkey. Its LiveLifeTaller, LimbLengtheningCenter and Lengthening Turkey.
LiveLifeTaller Dr Halil Buldu:
93,000$ for Precice + LON
Price includes 3 months of hotel stay, meds, xrays and physical therapy.
123,000$ for Precice + Precice
Price includes 3 months of hotel stay, meds, xrays and physical therapy.
LimbLengtheningCenter Dr Serkan Gurcan:
94,000$ for Precice + LON
Price includes 4 months of hotel stay, meds, xrays and physical therapy. (They say its mandatory to stay for 4 months)
119,000$ for Precice + Precice
Price includes 4 months of hotel stay, meds, xrays and physical therapy. (They say its mandatory for stay 4 months)
Lengthening Turkey Dr Fatih Arslanoglu, Dr Mehmet Coskun, Dr Deniz Akbulut:
76,000$ for Precice + LON
Price includes 3 months of hotel stay, meds, xrays, and physical therapy. (They additionally giving 14 days caretaker after surgery)
98,000$ for Precice + Precice.
Price includes 3 months of hotel stay, meds, xrays, and physical therapy. (They additionally giving 14 days caretaker after surgery)
-
The risk is that you now have 4 bones pushing fat into your blood stream and into your lungs, which can be deadly (though rarely). This is why Paley and others dont do both at the same time. Internal nails always push some amount of fat into your blood. The nail is like a piston.
-
I kind of have the same plan but I’m only doing 6cm at 5’9 rather than 10cm at 6’. I would say do 6 as well max lol. But it’s up to you. Precice for femur is smart imo, and if you have hair on your legs it can make tibia scarring not as obvious so it’s worth the 20,000 savings. If you’re doing sports at 6’ I don’t really think the surgery is that worth it, you’re obviously tall already. 6cm would get you in perfect male height range, no idea why you would do 10cm.
-
I think i heard Paley saying that fat embolism is crucial only the first 1-2 week after the surgery? So essentially you should be able to do the second segment after 2 weeks post 1st op, thats for example what Giotikas in Greece does.
Also I would like to clarify to you guys, that quadrilateral legthening is being misinterpreted by many surgeons, because they "probably" dont know, that it means breaking 4 bones at the same time in 1 surgery. I asked multiple of them Livelifetaller, Dr Yuksel, Limblegthening Turkey and more.
Apart from Dr Yuksel who explicitly told me, that he is not performing quadri and that you have to wait to get the 2nd surgery after the first segment had been already healed. Literally every other doctor from Turkey told me, that they do it either post healing or lengthening phase of the 1st segment. Nevertheless, many surgeons call it quadrilateral despite performing it 1 by 1.
Also, 10 is reasonable, with quadri you shouldnt push it above 11..
My advice for you is to not do it, especially not in Turkey. Go 1 by 1 after the lengthening phase or 2 weeks post op. I want to do quadri myself in 2-3 years…
-
Hello!
I am 183-184 cm tall. This equals 6 ft - 6 ft 0.5 inches. I am planning on doing a quadrilateral lengthening of both my femurs and tibias at the same time. The plan is to lengthen the femurs with around 5.5-6 cm and the tibias with around 4-4.5 cm, with a total of 10 cm. These numbers are rough estimates. The lengthening ratio between the femurs and tibias may still be adjusted in accordance to the present ratios of the current lengths of my bones.
The best alternative would be to lengthen my femurs with STRYDE/Precise nail and the tibias with the LON method. The reason why I want to do quadrilateral lengthening is to keep my biomechanics as intact as possible, which, in turn, would also be beneficial for preserving my athletic ability as much as possible.
Since I have a good base to start from, I think that a quadrilateral lengthening procedure with the lengthening amounts I am planning to do (10 cm max) can be performed quite safely. As soon as I have allocated the financial base for my lengthening procedure, I am ready to go through with the whole thing.
What are your thoughts on doing quadrilateral lengthening for a person with my height and height goal? Are there anyone else like me who are planning to do the same kind of lengthening?
Thanks!
I’d strongly advise against quadrilateral. At your height the percentage you are lengthening is lower than someone who is say 5’6”. Percentage lengthened is a far better safety marker than the actual amount lengthened. So you getting 8cm on the femur is most likely far easier than a short man (the irony of LL, the taller you are the less taxing it is). I’ve been on this forum a while and people who want quadrilateral almost always give up after one segment but they always think they will be the exception to the rule. I’d say around 90% or more patients planning on quadrilateral LL stop after they get one segment done. I’d strongly recommend getting to 6’3” through an 8cm femur lengthening.
Also if you are already 6’0.5 or 184 cm 8cm will make you 1cm short of 6’4”. And since most men, even tall ones, exaggerate a little to their height, or a lot in some cases (usually that’s for the shorter guys). I bet a lot of people will think you are an inch taller than you actually are.
-
I would advise anyone who is going to do CLL listen to all of Cyborg4Life Youtube channel. If not every video...at least half of them. At already 6 feet, you are already tall, Nordic country or not. You are going to break 4 segments, basically be crippled for a year, will not walk normal for 2 years, be out quarter million dollars, and never have your physical abilities/ athletic abilities be the same again. If you were 5'2" or something, I would say go for it. But at 6 feet? I did this on just the femurs...and it's been just over 3 years, you never get back to normal again. But best of luck if you do.
-
My advice for you is to not do it, especially not in Turkey. Go 1 by 1 after the lengthening phase or 2 weeks post op. I want to do quadri myself in 2-3 years…
This is something to consider. Doing the other segments 2 weeks post op is almost the same as doing them in the same procedure, if one takes into account how long the whole process takes.
-
I’d strongly advise against quadrilateral. At your height the percentage you are lengthening is lower than someone who is say 5’6”. Percentage lengthened is a far better safety marker than the actual amount lengthened. So you getting 8cm on the femur is most likely far easier than a short man (the irony of LL, the taller you are the less taxing it is). I’ve been on this forum a while and people who want quadrilateral almost always give up after one segment but they always think they will be the exception to the rule. I’d say around 90% or more patients planning on quadrilateral LL stop after they get one segment done. I’d strongly recommend getting to 6’3” through an 8cm femur lengthening.
Also if you are already 6’0.5 or 184 cm 8cm will make you 1cm short of 6’4”. And since most men, even tall ones, exaggerate a little to their height, or a lot in some cases (usually that’s for the shorter guys). I bet a lot of people will think you are an inch taller than you actually are.
The main reason for why I would consider quadrilateral lengthening before a bilateral lengthening is to preserve the bio-mechanics and, at the same time, as much as possible of my athletic ability. The bolded part of your text is the main reason why I consider this surgery a good option for people with a higher starting height.
I think it's worse to make a huge lengthening in one segment compared to lengthening the same amount divided over two segments. By dividing the lengthening over two segments, you are saving a lot of stress on your soft tissue.
As I am not planning on lengthening any more than 10 cm max in total, the stretching of my soft tissue and muscle will be very minor as the lengthening is not that high percentagewise in relation to my "uncorrected" starting height. The breaking of the bones is not the problem with limb lengthening. Bones heal. But stretching the soft tissue too much is what can cause problems.
Your last sentence does not sit quite right with me. I don't want to lie to myself by making people perceive me as having more height than I have. My main goal is to have the height which I am striving for, by correcting my height to what it actually should be, i.e. 6'3-6'4."
-
I would advise anyone who is going to do CLL listen to all of Cyborg4Life Youtube channel. If not every video...at least half of them. At already 6 feet, you are already tall, Nordic country or not. You are going to break 4 segments, basically be crippled for a year, will not walk normal for 2 years, be out quarter million dollars, and never have your physical abilities/ athletic abilities be the same again. If you were 5'2" or something, I would say go for it. But at 6 feet? I did this on just the femurs...and it's been just over 3 years, you never get back to normal again. But best of luck if you do.
How much did you lengthen your femurs?
-
Allin - how much did you lengthen and how "not normal" are you. Im a regular runner and Id like to keep it that way even after LL. Im doing 5CM.
-
No it is not, when you do them at once the risk you get fat embolism is so big, that you might fkin die man. The rods push fat into your bloofstream no longer than 2 weeks post op.
-
I did 7 cm. It does correct, but it just takes forever. I haven't gone to the gym since I did cll. 5cm, you'll be just fine. Honestly, 8 is ok...but the healing and rebuilding of the tissues just takes a long time.
-
I did 7 cm. It does correct, but it just takes forever. I haven't gone to the gym since I did cll. 5cm, you'll be just fine. Honestly, 8 is ok...but the healing and rebuilding of the tissues just takes a long time.
The recovery depends to a large part on what your initial "uncorrected" height was prior to the lengthening. In the end, it all comes down to how much lengthening is done percentagewise of the original "uncorrected" length of the bone. If the lengthening is kept under 20 % of the original height, the lengthening can be regarded as safe. Lengthening way under 20 % will most likely preserve most, if not all, of the athletic ability.
-
No it is not, when you do them at once the risk you get fat embolism is so big, that you might fkin die man. The rods push fat into your bloofstream no longer than 2 weeks post op.
Note taken. An easy way to avoid this would be to keep the lengthening of the two different segments apart from each other with a couple of weeks. As I am planning on lengthening my femurs with STRYDE or Precise nail while going with the LON-method for my tibias, I will only have rods in my femurs. But doing the second surgery two or three weeks later will probably in any way minimize any possible complications related to the risk of getting fat embolism.
-
The recovery depends to a large part on what your initial "uncorrected" height was prior to the lengthening. In the end, it all comes down to how much lengthening is done percentagewise of the original "uncorrected" length of the bone. If the lengthening is kept under 20 % of the original height, the lengthening can be regarded as safe. Lengthening way under 20 % will most likely preserve most, if not all, of the athletic ability.
You are aware that a 6' guy has maybe like a 6-10cm longer femur than a 5'4 guy right? The height difference is distributed across the entire body (ankle height, tibias, femurs, pelvis, spine, neck and skull) not just the leg bones. That means that you can "safely" lengthen like between 0.5-1cm more.
I have spoken with a guy who did 6cm on tibs and went from 164 to 170 and he said that he had the knee height of people who are like 188-190
-
That is a good decision I am planning to do tibias first and after 2 weeks femurs as tibial lengthening and healing takes longer time so i will finish the lengthening basically almost at the same time. Anyways good luck man, choose your surgeon wisely.
-
You are aware that a 6' guy has maybe like a 6-10cm longer femur than a 5'4 guy right? The height difference is distributed across the entire body (ankle height, tibias, femurs, pelvis, spine, neck and skull) not just the leg bones. That means that you can "safely" lengthen like between 0.5-1cm more.
I have spoken with a guy who did 6cm on tibs and went from 164 to 170 and he said that he had the knee height of people who are like 188-190
I am well aware that the height difference is distributed across the entire body. However, people differ much from each other when it comes to proportions. The range for what is considered to be normal may also vary quite a lot. Since the lengthenings I am planning to do is way under 20 % of my initial bone length (it's actually closer to 10 %), I think the lengthening in itself is, from an overall perspective and in the sense of preserving as much of the athletic ability as possible, quite safe to undergo.
-
I kind of have the same plan but I’m only doing 6cm at 5’9 rather than 10cm at 6’. I would say do 6 as well max lol. But it’s up to you. Precice for femur is smart imo, and if you have hair on your legs it can make tibia scarring not as obvious so it’s worth the 20,000 savings. If you’re doing sports at 6’ I don’t really think the surgery is that worth it, you’re obviously tall already. 6cm would get you in perfect male height range, no idea why you would do 10cm.
Why would I be satisfied lengthening only 6 (cm?), when I can easily go with a total of 10 cm? Once I am at it, i.e. in the lengthening phase, why not get as much out of it as possible (of course taking into account the safety limits)?
-
what is your wingspan? if its near to 189 you might go for the 10cms easily. For example my wingspan is 185cm, cause my legs stopped growing too early, thats why i can afford to go with 11cms and have wingspan 4cm shorter
-
what is your wingspan? if its near to 189 you might go for the 10cms easily. For example my wingspan is 185cm, cause my legs stopped growing too early, thats why i can afford to go with 11cms and have wingspan 4cm shorter
My wingspan is relatively the same as my height. However, I don't see this fact as an obstacle to do the lengthening of 10 cm. I still have plenty of room to go for a quadrilateral lengthening of 10 cm with a starting height of 6-6.05", so a few cm in difference between leg-length and arm-length won't matter much.
-
How long would the recovery approximately be from a quadrilateral lengthening of a total of 10 cm be?
-
People are changing their sex, so this is quite modest upgrade generally speaking.
I consider 6'2" to 6'5" route, but weighing in all options.
-
If you lengthen the femur and tibia together by 10 cm (example 6+4), will you actually get 10 cm or less?
-
People are changing their sxx, so this is quite modest upgrade generally speaking.
I consider 6'2" to 6'5" route, but weighing in all options.
Thanks for your input. The comparison to sxx changing operations (gender affirming surgery) is quite good and makes it easier to make the decision of going through with this procedure by putting things into perspective.
Are you saying that you are 6'2" and want to become 6'5" or that your end goal is something between 6'2-6'5"?
-
If you lengthen the femur and tibia together by 10 cm (example 6+4), will you actually get 10 cm or less?
I think the actual increase in stature height pretty much equals the amount of lengthening you make. The end result may differ with 0,5-0,75 cm or something (or not even that much) if you take into account that the femur is not completely vertical. Somebody can fill in on this if the numbers are not correct. I will most likely lengthen by more than 10 cm (10,5-11 cm) in order to achieve the height that I strive for, which is something between 192-194 cm.
-
don't to quadrilateral, that's just a stupid idea.
Do femurs first, as you're already tall, i'm sure you'll be able to reach the 8cm limit and then you can see how you feel. 192cm is taller than average in every single country. If you're still unhappy just wear 3cm insoles which are completely unnoticeable and comfortable = 197cm wearing shoes.
-
You lot are fking braindead and pathetically easy to troll.
This is nothing more than a thread to say 'HEY GUYS I'M 6FT TALL, MORE THAN YOU LOSERS' but dressed up inside a question. If you can't see that, you've got much bigger problems than just being short.
-
You lot are fking braindead and pathetically easy to troll.
This is nothing more than a thread to say 'HEY GUYS I'M 6FT TALL, MORE THAN YOU LOSERS' but dressed up inside a question. If you can't see that, you've got much bigger problems than just being short.
I would not have time nor any reason to initiate and uphold a troll post on this forum, because it would not benefit me or my life in any way. It may be quite difficult for me to prove that I am legitimately planning on doing this procedure, so you have to take me by my words. Yes, 6" is an okay height, but I still want to become taller for various reasons. My main reason would be that my upper body is quite long in comparison to my legs. I once was riding a train and I sat beside a dude whose head was on the same level as mine. When we both stood up, I noticed that he was like at least 8 cm taller than me. I know that I have some spare room to lengthen my legs in order to make me a little bit more proportional.
The reason why I started this thread was to find like-minded people, that is, people that are already fairly tall but still wishes to gain some more height.
-
I would not have time nor any reason to initiate and uphold a troll post on this forum, because it would not benefit me or my life in any way. It may be quite difficult for me to prove that I am legitimately planning on doing this procedure, so you have to take me by my words. Yes, 6" is an okay height, but I still want to become taller for various reasons. My main reason would be that my upper body is quite long in comparison to my legs. I once was riding a train and I sat beside a dude whose head was on the same level as mine. When we both stood up, I noticed that he was like at least 8 cm taller than me. I know that I have some spare room to lengthen my legs in order to make me a little bit more proportional.
The reason why I started this thread was to find like-minded people, that is, people that are already fairly tall but still wishes to gain some more height.
so you sat next to some complete stranger on the bus and then you both got up at the same time and you noticed you have a long torso and since then you have got daily nightmares where crowds of people, all of which are 8 feet tall and above are walking around you and watching you intensely "down there" and then you wake up all sweaty and find you pissed yourself in your sleep from that unimaginable horror
"like minded people", 99% of the forum population is like 5'4 so, no, not many 6 foot and above mental invalids around here, sorry
-
so you sat next to some complete stranger on the bus and then you both got up at the same time and you noticed you have a long torso and since then you have got daily nightmares where crowds of people, all of which are 8 feet tall and above are walking around you and watching you intensely "down there" and then you wake up all sweaty and find you pissed yourself in your sleep from that unimaginable horror
"like minded people", 99% of the forum population is like 5'4 so, no, not many 6 foot and above mental invalids around here, sorry
I just gave an example. The train incident was not any life-changing experience, just a simple observation from everyday life.
I don't get the rudeness. I am here hoping to discuss my leg-lengthening options, how much centimeters and millimeters I will lengthen each bone and which doctor I am going to choose, once I have the money needed for the procedure. I am very glad that LL exists and was hoping to be able to share and receive thoughts and experiences with other people when I started my thread. I am not here to mock anyone.
-
the reason youre not getting sympathy is that youre already at a height for which 99% of the rest of the forum would throw their mothers in a woodchipper for
especially guys who have already done the surgery and endured the torture that is LL on the body as well as the mind
look at this guy: http://www.limblengtheningforum.com/index.php?topic=64498.0
he did back to back tibia and femur external frames + nail and even after all that youre still 1 inch taller than him LOL
now i understand you wanna CHADmaxx and have hot model sloots throw their panties at you while you walk down the street like youre elvis presley but as far as the majority of us are concerned you should stop bragging about your 6 ft height and look into moneymaxxing instead
-
Please by all means go ruin your life when you already have a perfect height that 99% of short men would salivate at the thought of. Short men withstand this immense pain and effort to get to an average height where they are on equal playing field with an average dude. But this...?? Doing it at 6 ft is beyond retarded. Why stop at 6'4? Go lengthen till 7 ft. You will be unmoggable. Look what guys have to go through to have a fraction of what you are gifted naturally.
-
the reason youre not getting sympathy is that youre already at a height for which 99% of the rest of the forum would throw their mothers in a woodchipper for
especially guys who have already done the surgery and endured the torture that is LL on the body as well as the mind
look at this guy: http://www.limblengtheningforum.com/index.php?topic=64498.0
he did back to back tibia and femur external frames + nail and even after all that youre still 1 inch taller than him LOL
now i understand you wanna CHADmaxx and have hot model sloots throw their panties at you while you walk down the street like youre elvis presley but as far as the majority of us are concerned you should stop bragging about your 6 ft height and look into moneymaxxing instead
I have in no way bragged about my height. I have informed you what my current height is and what my height goal is. It's quite important to mention those numbers in order to have a reasonable discussion about different lengthening options.
I think my thread will be a good place to discuss limb lengthening options for people with higher starting heights. I also believe that it will lower the threshold for people to come forward with their wishes to do LL without the fear of being labeled as insane. People taller than me have gotten LL.
-
Please by all means go ruin your life when you already have a perfect height that 99% of short men would salivate at the thought of. Short men withstand this immense pain and effort to get to an average height where they are on equal playing field with an average dude. But this...?? Doing it at 6 ft is beyond retarded. Why stop at 6'4? Go lengthen till 7 ft. You will be unmoggable. Look what guys have to go through to have a fraction of what you are gifted naturally.
In what way would I "ruin my life" considering the quite modest lengthening I am planning (tibia 4,25 cm and femur 6,75 cm) and considering all is going well? The less you lengthen, the less risk of complications. Going from 6" to 6'4" is quite a leap and makes a major difference. I think that 193 cm is a good height, so I have no intention nor will to go above that.
-
tbh i think if you wanted to do it, you will have an easier time than the majority of us.
simply because the amount you lengthen will be small relative to your original limb length
if you are obsessed with biomechanics maybe what you could do is
measure you original limb ratios via xray, then lengthen your each individual segment just enough that you preserve that ratio
-
tbh i think if you wanted to do it, you will have an easier time than the majority of us.
simply because the amount you lengthen will be small relative to your original limb length
if you are obsessed with biomechanics maybe what you could do is
measure you original limb ratios via xray, then lengthen your each individual segment just enough that you preserve that ratio
Thank you for a good and helpful answer. :)
I am not totally obsessed with biomechanics. I just want to keep the ratio relatively intact. The LL-doctors who do quadrilateral lengthening probably have a good insight on this matter.
It is a good idea to start out with getting x-rays of the bones to get the exact measurements of them. It is also a concrete step toward starting this procedure. Once I have started out with something, I can't leave it undone. If it is not too expensive, I will try to get the x-rays in my home country. Another option would be to get the x-rays at the clinic where I am going to perform my lengthening procedure.
-
Suppose I choose to lengthen my tibias with 3 cm and two weeks after that I would start to lengthen my femurs with up to 6 cm, i.e. quadrilateral lengthening with a small pause in between the surgeries with the goal to increase my total height by 9 cm. I would go with fully weightbearing nails both in the tibias and the femurs. My starting height is 6 feet (183 cm). How long would you say that my recovery would be? I read somewhere that the recovery time for lengthening the tibias with only 3 cm would be around 2 months and lengthening the femurs with only 6 cm would take another 2-3 months to recover from. Note that I am talking about bone healing now, not complete recovery with normal walking gait. What is a realistic recovery time for me, considering my starting height? And how long would it approximately take for me to have a normal walking gait and being able to go to the gym without any hassle?
-
For 3 cm on tibias you will need 4,5-5 months. 45-50 days for 1 cm.
For femurs maybe a little less like 40 days per cm.
Very bad decision though to do quadrilateral at your height and for amounts like 3cm. You harmed yourself for literally to gain nothing. Anyway.
-
The total lengthening would be up to 9 cm. The good thing about lengthening from a higher starting height is that you put less stress on the muscles, nerves and tendons. The risk of complications is also very low, since the percentage that I am lengthening is quite low proportion wise to my bones. I would go from 6 feet to 6'3, which would put me in the range of the most optimal and ideal male height. So no, you're completely and utterly wrong when you're saying I wouldn't gain anything, but only harm myself. Have you read my other posts in this thread? Not sure if you're trying to be funny. But thanks for the info about recovery time. I appreciate it.
-
The total lengthening would be up to 9 cm. The good thing about lengthening from a higher starting height is that you put less stress on the muscles, nerves and tendons. The risk of complications is also very low, since the percentage that I am lengthening is quite low proportion wise to my bones. I would go from 6 feet to 6'3, which would put me in the range of the most optimal and ideal male height. So no, you're completely and utterly wrong when you're saying I wouldn't gain anything, but only harm myself. Have you read my other posts in this thread? Not sure if you're trying to be funny. But thanks for the info about recovery time. I appreciate it.
Even if you wanted to increase your height you could have done just 5-6cm on femurs and have a good result with not much time and money spent.
3cm on tibias are ridiculous, especially when you are already 6ft and you did femurs too. And 6.4, is not a good height, at least compared to 6-6.2 ft. Thats why I said you harm yourself (because always LL is harmful, no.matter what, just not at the same degree for everyone but that doesn't have to do.only with the initial height but with many factors too) for nothing. And thats the truth.
But its your decision after all so it doesn't really matter to anyone else what someone does with his body.
-
some guy was 5'11 and did about 1 inch to grow 6' feet. he ended up in a nursing care. dr yuksel butchered him and he has ballerina feet. he only did like 3 cm with bad feet already. just know what your getting yourself into. i thought the recovery was easy but its not.
-
some guy was 5'11 and did about 1 inch to grow 6' feet. he ended up in a nursing care. dr yuksel butchered him and he has ballerina feet. he only did like 3 cm with bad feet already. just know what your getting yourself into. i thought the recovery was easy but its not.
Wow, he must have gone to quite a butcher if he got botched with only 3 cm of increase. Looked up Yuksel and he's based in Turkey, makes sense.
-
Even if you wanted to increase your height you could have done just 5-6cm on femurs and have a good result with not much time and money spent.
3cm on tibias are ridiculous, especially when you are already 6ft and you did femurs too. And 6.4, is not a good height, at least compared to 6-6.2 ft. Thats why I said you harm yourself (because always LL is harmful, no.matter what, just not at the same degree for everyone but that doesn't have to do.only with the initial height but with many factors too) for nothing. And thats the truth.
But its your decision after all so it doesn't really matter to anyone else what someone does with his body.
I hear that, but my concerns are similar to Sky is the Limit's (I want 7-7.5 cm though): What if you have to deal with dysmorphia due to having weird looking legs for the rest of your life due to abnormal femur/tibia ratio? I use lifts and have to take hiding them into account, I don't want to have to do the same with my legs and have to cover them in specific ways, think about what clothes to wear, worry about going to the beach etc. I wanna be taller and then carry on with my life, I don't want to add a new layer of complication to my everyday life post-recovery. If you do double LL such that your femur/tibia ratio is normal that's it, your legs look normal and you don't have to worry about it (or altered biomechanics, arguably more serious).
-
For 3 cm on tibias you will need 4,5-5 months. 45-50 days for 1 cm.
For femurs maybe a little less like 40 days per cm.
Very bad decision though to do quadrilateral at your height and for amounts like 3cm. You harmed yourself for literally to gain nothing. Anyway.
Wait, I thought the lengthening is like 0.5-1 mm per day, so for, say, 7 cm, it would be 70-140 days.
-
Even if you wanted to increase your height you could have done just 5-6cm on femurs and have a good result with not much time and money spent.
3cm on tibias are ridiculous, especially when you are already 6ft and you did femurs too. And 6.4, is not a good height, at least compared to 6-6.2 ft. Thats why I said you harm yourself (because always LL is harmful, no.matter what, just not at the same degree for everyone but that doesn't have to do.only with the initial height but with many factors too) for nothing. And thats the truth.
But its your decision after all so it doesn't really matter to anyone else what someone does with his body.
As I have already stated in my initial post in this thread, the reason I am going to undergo a quadrilateral lengthening is to preserve the ratios between my tibias and femurs and to keep my biomechanics as intact as possible. I think you are underestimating the benefits of doing LL with a higher starting height. It is a tremendous advantage to have longer bones from the beginning if you are going to undergo LL. The amount of the lengthening is in proportion to the existing (initial) length of the bones very small in comparison to how much is usually lengthened in proportion to the initial length of the bones for people with lower starting heights. I also think that you are exaggerating the risks that may occur in the lengthening process. Sure, you have to take into account all the possible risks that may occur, but since the amounts of the lengthenings that I am planning to do is very small (3 cm + 6 cm or even 2,75 cm + 5,5 cm) compared to the huge amounts many people often do, I can easily undergo a quadrilateral lengthening, i.e. two surgeries in one go (with a couple of weeks in between), and be done with this whole procedure relatively easily. My height goal is 6'3 feet (190-192 cm), which is a much better and more solid height than 6 feet flat.
-
This is complete lunacy.
-
This is complete lunacy.
I say let these crazies do it. They'll quickly realize how little benefit there is and how that money would've been far more useful on just about any other cosmetic procedure. Hair transplant, rhino, or even jaw surgery. Heck, even braces if you have crooked teeth will do you better !
-
Don't do leg lengthening when you're over 180.
Seriously
-
I say let these crazies do it. They'll quickly realize how little benefit there is and how that money would've been far more useful on just about any other cosmetic procedure. Hair transplant, rhino, or even jaw surgery. Heck, even braces if you have crooked teeth will do you better !
Funny thing you are planning on doing quadrilateral lengthening by up to 11,5 cm and you are calling ME crazy?
And just for the record, I am right now at this very moment in the middle of a bimax-surgery-process (jaw surgery). And do you want to know the best part? It's completely free for me! I live in a country with a publicly financed comprehensive healthcare system, and my case goes under specialised health care. So I am undergoing orthognathic surgery where they will perform a bimax and possibly a sliding genioplasty on me. My surgery will be in 1.5-2 years from now. I am now in partial braces and will get full on braces in the spring of next year. Only the braces themselves would cost me at least 6 000 euro if I would do it privately. The cost of the operation can go up to 150 000 ($) done in a private clinic in the USA. I went extatic with joy when I got opted for orthognatic surgery. And this is what opened a window for me to seriously consider undergoing LL.
The biggest question I have for now is: Should I do my quadrilateral LL BEFORE or AFTER my bimax surgery? That is the question. Could you give any advice or input in that?
-
Don't do leg lengthening when you're over 180.
Seriously
Did you read all my posts in this thread before spewing out your unreasonable negativity? For some people, LL is simply just beneficial. Take me for example. I have a quite long torso in comparison to my legs. Therefore, contrary to a lot of your "opinions" here on the matter, I can "afford" to do leg lengthening (not talking in a monetary sense here), beacuse I would look more proportionate as a whole with longer legs, which means that I would benefit from it a lot with a lot less risks that is normally linked to LL-surgery. It's very hard for me to understand how you can say that a person over 180 cm should not do LL, when it is clearly more safe for that person to do it compared to a person who is, lets say, under 170 cm, and is planning to undergo a quadrilateral lengthening. It seriously blows my mind how some people (not talking specifically about you now) logical thinking goes. Because the logical reasoning of many that have answered in this thread don't sit well with their own plans in regard to (C)LL. To me, it seems like some people deep down don't want me to take advantage of LL with the starting height that I have. People here are yelling about craziness and high risks, when them themselves are planning to undergo or have undergone even far more extensive lengthenings without any serious complications. People here should be more supportive and helpful in regard to my leg lengthening plans, because we all have the same goal, which is getting taller. It's not more complicated than that.
-
Look, as a guy who did the surgery...
I don't know you, and you asked for advise, that's what I have to offer. You can like or not it's up to you, it comes from an honest will to help.
People get in this forum into long debates about this surgery and the procedure, tibia or femur, 4 or 5 or 5.5 or 8 cm, proportions, etc etc....its easy to get caught in this and feel like this is your world when in fact, it's not. The real world is out there and it's full of people who think this surgery is pure crazy. And it includes many shorter guys. Shorter than average guys who of course would love to be taller but in no way in hell would consider go through this risky journey. Many girls (which obviously women are a huge reason for guys to do this) actually look down at a guy who did this kind of a surgery because it shows a serious lack of self confidence, some inferiority issues, superficiality and even lack of a mature judgement. I think a decent woman would prefer a shorter guy with confidence and charisma over a taller guy who got this surgery to be tall.
So in other words - try not to mix the guys in here and this forum with the real, sane people that are out there, which we all were a part of before this surgery infected our minds:)
Obviously, significantly shorter guys or girls that are met with this in every single social interaction or even on their own dealing with being below 1 percentile, would probably have a just case of going through this risky journey because the benefit outweigh the risks.
But for a person who is in a decent height? That's just unnecessary risk.
And for all your talk about being taller makes it less risky because of proportions etc, or even discussing whats the "safest" method, I'm sorry to say but thats just bullcrap.
You break your bones and practically maim your most essential function of your body - the ability to walk. Yes it may recover to normality but hardly it ever goes 100 percent normal and for a healthy, normal person to do it to his body, is pretty much cruelty. So for a normal height guy? That's plain crazy.
I actually think it's crazy for people of all heights even the shortest....but I guess some craziness is more justified than others.
That is my opinion only and I wish only the happiness and th best to everyone
-
As I have already stated in my initial post in this thread, the reason I am going to undergo a quadrilateral lengthening is to preserve the ratios between my tibias and femurs and to keep my biomechanics as intact as possible. I think you are underestimating the benefits of doing LL with a higher starting height. It is a tremendous advantage to have longer bones from the beginning if you are going to undergo LL. The amount of the lengthening is in proportion to the existing (initial) length of the bones very small in comparison to how much is usually lengthened in proportion to the initial length of the bones for people with lower starting heights. I also think that you are exaggerating the risks that may occur in the lengthening process. Sure, you have to take into account all the possible risks that may occur, but since the amounts of the lengthenings that I am planning to do is very small (3 cm + 6 cm or even 2,75 cm + 5,5 cm) compared to the huge amounts many people often do, I can easily undergo a quadrilateral lengthening, i.e. two surgeries in one go (with a couple of weeks in between), and be done with this whole procedure relatively easily. My height goal is 6'3 feet (190-192 cm), which is a much better and more solid height than 6 feet flat.
Quadrilateral lengthening is always riskier than lengthening one segment. For some people it is the only way to reach a normal height but for a 6ft dude to do both segments with ridiculous amounts like 3cm on tibias is just a stupid idea. LL is the most invasive, risky and extreme cosmetic surgery, nothing to do with gnathoplasty and all these. Also, noone will be as before, even if he just lengthens 2cm. It is hillarious to believe that with quadriple LL, even with relatively low amounts, you will function as before, because you want.
And no, with 6cm on femurs and 3cm on tibias you won't keep your proportions right because femurs are not double the size of the tibias so to keep proportions you should have done something like 4cm on femurs and 3.on tibias.
Still the biomechanics will be altered with LL no.matter what. And by not even waiting to fully.consolidate from one segment and then do the other but do both of them with just a few weeks break between them is also a bad decision.
Anyway, you are some of the few cases here who really won't have any benefit from LL and no responsible doctor should even operate them. Still, I wish you luck and my 2 cents is just do 5cm on femur and stop there, if you really need extra height. But your body.your decision.
-
Wait, I thought the lengthening is like 0.5-1 mm per day, so for, say, 7 cm, it would be 70-140 days.
You need about 45 days per cm from operation day till fully bone consolodation, not.just lengthening.
-
Funny thing you are planning on doing quadrilateral lengthening by up to 11,5 cm and you are calling ME crazy?
And just for the record, I am right now at this very moment in the middle of a bimax-surgery-process (jaw surgery). And do you want to know the best part? It's completely free for me! I live in a country with a publicly financed comprehensive healthcare system, and my case goes under specialised health care. So I am undergoing orthognathic surgery where they will perform a bimax and possibly a sliding genioplasty on me. My surgery will be in 1.5-2 years from now. I am now in partial braces and will get full on braces in the spring of next year. Only the braces themselves would cost me at least 6 000 euro if I would do it privately. The cost of the operation can go up to 150 000 ($) done in a private clinic in the USA. I went extatic with joy when I got opted for orthognatic surgery. And this is what opened a window for me to seriously consider undergoing LL.
The biggest question I have for now is: Should I do my quadrilateral LL BEFORE or AFTER my bimax surgery? That is the question. Could you give any advice or input in that?
While 11.5cm is "a lot", it's not "crazy"--quadrilateral, not single segment. Unless you consider all LL to be crazy, which many think it is. 7cm femur, 4.5cm tibia is within the safe range.
Congratulations on the bimax surgery and braces. That will without a doubt do FAR MORE for you than LL ever will. How is your hairline? If you're a Norwood 3+, do a hair transplant before LL. I'm being brutally honest with you on what will have the highest ROI.
My recommendation? Get LL after bimax. Why? Because you may change your mind. You may get bimax, get great results and a general quality of life increase that you're looking for professionally and romantically, and realize it's not your height holding you back.
-
You need about 45 days per cm from operation day till fully bone consolodation, not.just lengthening.
Got it, thanks
-
Look, as a guy who did the surgery...
I don't know you, and you asked for advise, that's what I have to offer. You can like or not it's up to you, it comes from an honest will to help.
People get in this forum into long debates about this surgery and the procedure, tibia or femur, 4 or 5 or 5.5 or 8 cm, proportions, etc etc....its easy to get caught in this and feel like this is your world when in fact, it's not. The real world is out there and it's full of people who think this surgery is pure crazy. And it includes many shorter guys. Shorter than average guys who of course would love to be taller but in no way in hell would consider go through this risky journey. Many girls (which obviously women are a huge reason for guys to do this) actually look down at a guy who did this kind of a surgery because it shows a serious lack of self confidence, some inferiority issues, superficiality and even lack of a mature judgement. I think a decent woman would prefer a shorter guy with confidence and charisma over a taller guy who got this surgery to be tall.
So in other words - try not to mix the guys in here and this forum with the real, sane people that are out there, which we all were a part of before this surgery infected our minds:)
Obviously, significantly shorter guys or girls that are met with this in every single social interaction or even on their own dealing with being below 1 percentile, would probably have a just case of going through this risky journey because the benefit outweigh the risks.
But for a person who is in a decent height? That's just unnecessary risk.
And for all your talk about being taller makes it less risky because of proportions etc, or even discussing whats the "safest" method, I'm sorry to say but thats just bullcrap.
You break your bones and practically maim your most essential function of your body - the ability to walk. Yes it may recover to normality but hardly it ever goes 100 percent normal and for a healthy, normal person to do it to his body, is pretty much cruelty. So for a normal height guy? That's plain crazy.
I actually think it's crazy for people of all heights even the shortest....but I guess some craziness is more justified than others.
That is my opinion only and I wish only the happiness and th best to everyone
You are starting of very nicely, but your post as a whole does not make any sense and lacks any concrete information. You are not giving any constructive arguments to why it is not less risky to undergo LL with a higher starting height. Could you elaborate more on the bolded part? Why is it bullcrap?
I have already given my own arguments and explained why the benefits would outweigh the risks in my case. The lengthening amounts are very minor in proportion to the initial length of my bones and therefore it is much easier for my body to adjust to the new length. The problem with LL is not the breaking of the bones, because bones heal. The problem with LL is rather the extending of the muscles and nerves by too much. If you ask any doctor, most of them would choose to have a broken bone rather than to receive an injury to the soft tissue of the body, because bones heal easily.
You mention that you have undergone the procedure yourself. Are you happy with the results? What was your starting height and what is your current height? Did you encounter any complications during or after LL? If so, what kind of complications? Which country did you do the LL in and what doctor did perform the LL on you? You can also answer these questions via PM.
-
Quadrilateral lengthening is always riskier than lengthening one segment. For some people it is the only way to reach a normal height but for a 6ft dude to do both segments with ridiculous amounts like 3cm on tibias is just a stupid idea. LL is the most invasive, risky and extreme cosmetic surgery, nothing to do with gnathoplasty and all these. Also, noone will be as before, even if he just lengthens 2cm. It is hillarious to believe that with quadriple LL, even with relatively low amounts, you will function as before, because you want.
And no, with 6cm on femurs and 3cm on tibias you won't keep your proportions right because femurs are not double the size of the tibias so to keep proportions you should have done something like 4cm on femurs and 3.on tibias.
Still the biomechanics will be altered with LL no.matter what. And by not even waiting to fully.consolidate from one segment and then do the other but do both of them with just a few weeks break between them is also a bad decision.
Anyway, you are some of the few cases here who really won't have any benefit from LL and no responsible doctor should even operate them. Still, I wish you luck and my 2 cents is just do 5cm on femur and stop there, if you really need extra height. But your body.your decision.
Could you explain why it is more riskier to undergo two separate lengthenings where the amount of the lengthening is well within the safety-limit and make up only a small percentage of the initial bone length compared to undergoing a huge lengthening in one segment, where you are stretching the muscles and nerves by far more and closer to the absolute safety limit? Many people on this forum have stated that it is far more safer in the long run to make two separate, but smaller lengthenings in two segments, than to make a huge stretch in only one segment. Going the easy way and only lengthening the femurs is not an option for me, since it will forever skew the proportions and will permanently change and affect the biomechanics and range of motions in the legs. By lengthening both tibias and femurs way within the safety limits you preserve the biomechanics and range of motion between the legs and won't have to adjust to a completely new biomechanical range of motion. If you are doing quadrilateral lengthening, you are getting longer legs that you have to adjust to, but the ratios will stay as intact as possible. The muscles and nerves will also adjust more easily due to the minor stretching that they undergo.
-
u could go for 6'2, also a great height as 6'4. In my opinion both are perfect height range for a man these days
-
Could you explain why it is more riskier to undergo two separate lengthenings where the amount of the lengthening is well within the safety-limit and make up only a small percentage of the initial bone length compared to undergoing a huge lengthening in one segment, where you are stretching the muscles and nerves by far more and closer to the absolute safety limit? Many people on this forum have stated that it is far more safer in the long run to make two separate, but smaller lengthenings in two segments, than to make a huge stretch in only one segment. Going the easy way and only lengthening the femurs is not an option for me, since it will forever skew the proportions and will permanently change and affect the biomechanics and range of motions in the legs. By lengthening both tibias and femurs way within the safety limits you preserve the biomechanics and range of motion between the legs and won't have to adjust to a completely new biomechanical range of motion. If you are doing quadrilateral lengthening, you are getting longer legs that you have to adjust to, but the ratios will stay as intact as possible. The muscles and nerves will also adjust more easily due to the minor stretching that they undergo.
Because.the surgery.itself has many risks first of all. 2 surgeries,.double the risks.
Also, messing both segments is way worse than lengthening one segment to a safe amount and leave the other segment completely untouched. Because LL alters everything amd even with 3 cm your tibias won't be the same, the soft tissues will be sttetchen and become stiffer which will cause problems to ankle also etc.
Never doing both segments is not better.than doing one, never doing 4+2 cm on femurs and tibias will be safer than doing.6cm on femurs only.
10.years ago quadrilateral was very rare and only for very short people and nowadays many like you are willing to break all their bones in legs for ridiculous amounts and doctors are.willing to do it for double the money that they would get. Otherwise no real.doctor would have done quadrilaterals to people like you, only moneyhungry merchants.
-
Because.the surgery.itself has many risks first of all. 2 surgeries,.double the risks.
Also, messing both segments is way worse than lengthening one segment to a safe amount and leave the other segment completely untouched. Because LL alters everything amd even with 3 cm your tibias won't be the same, the soft tissues will be sttetchen and become stiffer which will cause problems to ankle also etc.
Never doing both segments is not better.than doing one, never doing 4+2 cm on femurs and tibias will be safer than doing.6cm on femurs only.
10.years ago quadrilateral was very rare and only for very short people and nowadays many like you are willing to break all their bones in legs for ridiculous amounts and doctors are.willing to do it for double the money that they would get. Otherwise no real.doctor would have done quadrilaterals to people like you, only moneyhungry merchants.
You keep saying "ridiculous amounts". What do you mean by that? OP has clearly stated he wants to do 8-10 cm, a very standard but also decent amount, he just wants to distribute it along two smaller segments to lengthen even further below the safety limits than it would be with just femur, and to preserve his tibia/femur ratio and thus biomechanics. Also, not everyone has normal-looking legs pre-LL, some people's tibia/femur ratio is already at the limits of statistical normality and can't do single LL without ending up with weird-looking legs they have to live with for the rest of their lives, worry about having to cover up, going to the beach etc. Just like some people have a short arm span/height ratio and have to do arm lengthening to avoid "t-rex arms" after LL (though Paley has said this is rare).
Does your argument mainly boil down to "LL is risky, so doing it twice is riskier, therefore double LL should be avoided as much as possible in favor of single LL"?
-
You keep saying "ridiculous amounts". What do you mean by that? OP has clearly stated he wants to do 8-10 cm, a very standard but also decent amount, he just wants to distribute it along two smaller segments to lengthen even further below the safety limits than it would be with just femur, and to preserve his tibia/femur ratio and thus biomechanics. Also, not everyone has normal-looking legs pre-LL, some people's tibia/femur ratio is already at the limits of statistical normality and can't do single LL without ending up with weird-looking legs they have to live with for the rest of their lives, worry about having to cover up, going to the beach etc. Just like some people have a short arm span/height ratio and have to do arm lengthening to avoid "t-rex arms" after LL (though Paley has said this is rare).
Does your argument mainly boil down to "LL is risky, so doing it twice is riskier, therefore double LL should be avoided as much as possible in favor of single LL"?
3cm is a ridiculous amount to break your legs for that.
If you are willing to do tibias you should do 5-6.5 cm to really worth it. Otherwise stick with 6-7 cm on femurs and nothing more.
OP will be tall even with 6cm added on femurs.which is a reasonable and relatively safe amount and nothing else. By breaking the tibias for 3cm he won't gain anything in reality. The biomechanics won't be ok with 7cm on femurs and 3on tibias, the difference should have been something like 6cm on femurs and 4,5 on tibias. Still the biomechanics will be altered.from LL no matter what, even if the ratio between femurs and tibias would remain the same (which it won't with 7 and 3 cm).
And of course.doing 2 surgeries instead of 1, especially as he wrote he would do them (not the second after completely rehabilitation of the first but with only some weeks difference) is an extra recipe for disaster.
But I'll wait for his diary and see if he will do it first of all and especially if he goes with tibias too after seeing how extreme LL is . Because most of people who talk about that ridiculous amounts (most of the times already average or tall) never do it, at least not as they planned it. They do one segment at best and just that.
-
3cm is a ridiculous amount to break your legs for that.
If you are willing to do tibias you should do 5-6.5 cm to really worth it. Otherwise stick with 6-7 cm on femurs and nothing more.
OP will be tall even with 6cm added on femurs.which is a reasonable and relatively safe amount and nothing else. By breaking the tibias for 3cm he won't gain anything in reality. The biomechanics won't be ok with 7cm on femurs and 3on tibias, the difference should have been something like 6cm on femurs and 4,5 on tibias. Still the biomechanics will be altered.from LL no matter what, even if the ratio between femurs and tibias would remain the same (which it won't with 7 and 3 cm).
And of course.doing 2 surgeries instead of 1, especially as he wrote he would do them (not the second after completely rehabilitation of the first but with only some weeks difference) is an extra recipe for disaster.
But I'll wait for his diary and see if he will do it first of all and especially if he goes with tibias too after seeing how extreme LL is . Because most of people who talk about that ridiculous amounts (most of the times already average or tall) never do it, at least not as they planned it. They do one segment at best and just that.
Assuming someone has normal tibias and femurs pre-LL, do you think 7 cm femurs-only will make a noticeable difference in how the legs look?
-
Assuming someone has normal tibias and femurs pre-LL, do you think 7 cm femurs-only will make a noticeable difference in how the legs look?
A noticeable, if you mean plain obvious with clothes on, definitely not.
I did 7.5 cm on tibias and I look great with clothes. And 7.5cm on tibias look definitely more disproportional than 7cm on femurs.
That said, without clothes there would be a little discrepancy but only to the experienced eye of an LLer. A normal person I don't think it will look twice or see something abnormal.
Again with my personal experience, I have some scars on tibias and they are relatively long compared to my femurs, still noone ever thought that something was not right when I am with underwear or a swimsuit.
So no, I don't beliebe that 7cm in femurs in normally proportional legs (before LL) would make a visible difference to how the legs look. But it will make a big difference to how tall you are.
-
A noticeable, if you mean plain obvious with clothes on, definitely not.
I did 7.5 cm on tibias and I look great with clothes. And 7.5cm on tibias look definitely more disproportional than 7cm on femurs.
That said, without clothes there would be a little discrepancy but only to the experienced eye of an LLer. A normal person I don't think it will look twice or see something abnormal.
Again with my personal experience, I have some scars on tibias and they are relatively long compared to my femurs, still noone ever thought that something was not right when I am with underwear or a swimsuit.
So no, I don't beliebe that 7cm in femurs in normally proportional legs (before LL) would make a visible difference to how the legs look. But it will make a big difference to how tall you are.
7 cm on tibias? Interesting, first time I hear that. What made you decide on that and not femurs?
-
7 cm on tibias? Interesting, first time I hear that. What made you decide on that and not femurs?
Because I wanted to do externals (for budget issues and safety too for reasons I have explained in other posts) and also I find longer tibias (from LL) more aesthetic than femurs. I did 7,5 cm and never regretted it.
-
I essentially did what you are describing (you can see in my signature block that I did the surgery 2 times over a few years). The 2nd time my starting height was right around 6 feet (182-183 cm) pre-surgery. Now I stand 188-189 cm (6'2.5"). I mention this range because our bodies naturally shrink/ decompress a bit throughout the day, so those were my heights depending on what time in the day I measured myself (with a stadiometer).
What is the difference in how I feel now/ how I am perceived? Well nowadays, many people who meet me remark how tall I am. That did not occur when I was "only" 6 feet. Many people guess I am in the height range of 6'3-6'4, especially women who meet me. I currently live in the USA and am usually the tallest (or one of the tallest) guys in most rooms. Those things certainly DID NOT occur while I was "only" 6 feet.
So becoming that tall is something that might benefit your mental health (if your goal is to become taller than everyone). But it will not give you any strong social advantages. I agree with some other posters here that the "social advantages" are probably much more noticeable for someone who increases their height from say 5'5" to 5'10" or something around that range. That person is transforming from "short" to "average/ above average". At his newfound 5'10 height, he is now free from height discrimination (and perhaps ridicule/ insensitive comments from others) that he may have heard at his prior 5'5" height. He will no longer be disqualified by women as a dating prospect due to height. He will no longer be identified as "the short guy." And that will free him to achieve great things and be his best self around others, because his height is no longer a barrier socially.
However, in your case, (going from 6' to 6'3), you are going from tall to "very tall." How important is it to you to be "very tall?" If it is important to you personally, maybe it is worth it (it was for me). But if you are trying to improve your dating life or business prospects (societal benefits), then don't expect some sort of radical benefits socially. People will still pretty much treat you the same afterwards, there will not be a radical shift, just because you are now "very tall".
-
I essentially did what you are describing (you can see in my signature block that I did the surgery 2 times over a few years). The 2nd time my starting height was right around 6 feet (182-183 cm) pre-surgery. Now I stand 188-189 cm (6'2.5"). I mention this range because our bodies naturally shrink/ decompress a bit throughout the day, so those were my heights depending on what time in the day I measured myself (with a stadiometer).
What is the difference in how I feel now/ how I am perceived? Well nowadays, many people who meet me remark how tall I am. That did not occur when I was "only" 6 feet. Many people guess I am in the height range of 6'3-6'4, especially women who meet me. I currently live in the USA and am usually the tallest (or one of the tallest) guys in most rooms. Those things certainly DID NOT occur while I was "only" 6 feet.
So becoming that tall is something that might benefit your mental health (if your goal is to become taller than everyone). But it will not give you any strong social advantages. I agree with some other posters here that the "social advantages" are probably much more noticeable for someone who increases their height from say 5'5" to 5'10" or something around that range. That person is transforming from "short" to "average/ above average". At his newfound 5'10 height, he is now free from height discrimination (and perhaps ridicule/ insensitive comments from others) that he may have heard at his prior 5'5" height. He will no longer be disqualified by women as a dating prospect due to height. He will no longer be identified as "the short guy." And that will free him to achieve great things and be his best self around others, because his height is no longer a barrier socially.
However, in your case, (going from 6' to 6'3), you are going from tall to "very tall." How important is it to you to be "very tall?" If it is important to you personally, maybe it is worth it (it was for me). But if you are trying to improve your dating life or business prospects (societal benefits), then don't expect some sort of radical benefits socially. People will still pretty much treat you the same afterwards, there will not be a radical shift, just because you are now "very tall".
I am the same height as you were originally, 176-7 and I plan to do quad too, but shorter. Would you mind showing your proportions before and after
-
Sure, I can. What specifically would you like to see?
-
Sure, I can. What specifically would you like to see?
-
Sure, I can. What specifically would you like to see?
normal stature photos with clothes, before and after, front size is enough i guess. Also, how much is your wingspan?
-
I essentially did what you are describing (you can see in my signature block that I did the surgery 2 times over a few years). The 2nd time my starting height was right around 6 feet (182-183 cm) pre-surgery. Now I stand 188-189 cm (6'2.5"). I mention this range because our bodies naturally shrink/ decompress a bit throughout the day, so those were my heights depending on what time in the day I measured myself (with a stadiometer).
What is the difference in how I feel now/ how I am perceived? Well nowadays, many people who meet me remark how tall I am. That did not occur when I was "only" 6 feet. Many people guess I am in the height range of 6'3-6'4, especially women who meet me. I currently live in the USA and am usually the tallest (or one of the tallest) guys in most rooms. Those things certainly DID NOT occur while I was "only" 6 feet.
So becoming that tall is something that might benefit your mental health (if your goal is to become taller than everyone). But it will not give you any strong social advantages. I agree with some other posters here that the "social advantages" are probably much more noticeable for someone who increases their height from say 5'5" to 5'10" or something around that range. That person is transforming from "short" to "average/ above average". At his newfound 5'10 height, he is now free from height discrimination (and perhaps ridicule/ insensitive comments from others) that he may have heard at his prior 5'5" height. He will no longer be disqualified by women as a dating prospect due to height. He will no longer be identified as "the short guy." And that will free him to achieve great things and be his best self around others, because his height is no longer a barrier socially.
However, in your case, (going from 6' to 6'3), you are going from tall to "very tall." How important is it to you to be "very tall?" If it is important to you personally, maybe it is worth it (it was for me). But if you are trying to improve your dating life or business prospects (societal benefits), then don't expect some sort of radical benefits socially. People will still pretty much treat you the same afterwards, there will not be a radical shift, just because you are now "very tall".
Wow dude, 174 to 188 is an insane jump. From below average to within the ideal male height range. Did you write diaries for your two lengthenings?
-
Sure, I can. What specifically would you like to see?
How was ur lordosis after femur lengthening? I can imagine it was severe.
-
@slowed & reverb- At the moment, I prefer not to post pics of me on a public form (even with my face cropped out). However, if you shoot me a Private Message (PM) on here, I can send you the photos that I have.
Keep in mind, I may not have a lot of full-body photos from before the surgeries. I suffered from pretty severe height dysphoria at the time and largely avoided taking photos full body, standing up.
I have never measured my wingspan as I was simply never interested in that data point. And I hate the act of any part of my body being measured (due to the dysphoria).
Propotion-wise today, nobody thinks anything is "off" with my body. Obviously my legs are a bit long for my torso, but I have never had anyone (including women I am dating) even suspect for a moment that something is out of proportion or not right. They just look at me and see a tall, fit guy.
But again, I can send you some pics over PM and you can be the judge.
-
Wow dude, 174 to 188 is an insane jump. From below average to within the ideal male height range. Did you write diaries for your two lengthenings?
Thanks Kintaeryos, yes it was definitely a journey. I did not post a diary on the forum because I was very single-minded during my journey and I simply wanted to get through it without distractions, if that makes sense.
However, over the years, I have been putting together my "Guide to Limb Lengthening." It started as a personal diary/ journey to help me reflect on the experience and I never planned to show it to anybody else. However, it has turned into more of a practical guide that could help other LL'ers. I tried to go into detail on topics I wish I had known before my surgery. Like logistical matters, lessons learned, things I would have done differently, tips on how to select accommodation, questions to ask surgeons when you first interview them, how to keep this surgery private from family members and coworkers, etc. The privacy was something I made some mistakes on and I would do different now if I could turn back time.
And now that this journey is behind me, I want to give back to the community and share my experiences. So I will try to figure out a way to share it with the community, if that is something that people can find useful.
I feel that forum diaries can be useful, but they are somewhat too personally oriented to apply to a lot of people and be practical. I did read through a lot of diaries myself before getting the procedures. However, I found the content in the diaries a bit overwhelming and challenging to navigate, especially if the diaries began to span pages and pages in length. At times, it was also depressing and confusing. It was hard extracting the important/ applicable parts.
Everyone will have aches and pains, but your experience in terms of pain will differ a lot from the individual posting the diary. Having gone through it twice now), I feel that a practical guide (condensed, easy to follow, sequenced) focusing on lessons learned, logistics, etc is what can really help out a lot of people.
So long story short, those are some of the reasons I never wrote a diary on here. But I am trying to put together content right now that hopefully might be even more helpful. Again, thanks for your comment and your questions.
-
How was ur lordosis after femur lengthening? I can imagine it was severe.
It actually wasn't so bad. I did have some duckass. What I found most helpful to help these kinds of posture/ physical problems was:
-Stretching my quads as much as possible through the standing quad stretch (standing up and pulling my feet to my butt)
-Strengthening my glutes and hamstrings at the gym through leg curl exercises (lay down on your stomach and pull the weight to your butt)
I really did almost no formal physical therapy once I completed lengthening and I still found these issues eventually resolved with time, without me doing much (besides walking and some exercises I just mentioned). But I would recommend someone try to continue with physical therapy in the consolidation phase. Your recovery will speed up and you will feel much better.
-
Because.the surgery.itself has many risks first of all. 2 surgeries,.double the risks.
Also, messing both segments is way worse than lengthening one segment to a safe amount and leave the other segment completely untouched. Because LL alters everything amd even with 3 cm your tibias won't be the same, the soft tissues will be sttetchen and become stiffer which will cause problems to ankle also etc.
Never doing both segments is not better.than doing one, never doing 4+2 cm on femurs and tibias will be safer than doing.6cm on femurs only.
10.years ago quadrilateral was very rare and only for very short people and nowadays many like you are willing to break all their bones in legs for ridiculous amounts and doctors are.willing to do it for double the money that they would get. Otherwise no real.doctor would have done quadrilaterals to people like you, only moneyhungry merchants.
Yes, the soft tissues will always be stretched when undergoing LL, but it is always safer to stretch as little as possible. For example, the risk of complications to the ankle is by far greater in a situation where a tibia has been stretched by 7,5 cm than compared to a tibia that has been lengthened by only 3,5-4 cm. Wouldn't you agree? Also, the effects of the stretching also depends on the initial length of the bone that is being stretched. The less the bone is lengthened in proportion to its original length, the better it is and the less taxing it is for the leg. The risk of complications also drops significantly the less the amount of lengthening is in relation to the initial bone length.
And by the way. Just to point it out for you. First you write that the soft tissue will be stretched, and right after that you say that it is better to stretch more than less. I am sorry, but your reasoning does not make any sense. The majority of people on this forum agree that doing two separate lengthenings within the safe limits (if there actually are any "true" safe limits) is far better than making a huge stretch in only one segment. For example, a stretch of 5 cm femur + 3,75 cm tibia is better than stretching the tibia or femur alone by 8-9 cm.
-
3cm is a ridiculous amount to break your legs for that.
If you are willing to do tibias you should do 5-6.5 cm to really worth it. Otherwise stick with 6-7 cm on femurs and nothing more.
OP will be tall even with 6cm added on femurs.which is a reasonable and relatively safe amount and nothing else. By breaking the tibias for 3cm he won't gain anything in reality. The biomechanics won't be ok with 7cm on femurs and 3on tibias, the difference should have been something like 6cm on femurs and 4,5 on tibias. Still the biomechanics will be altered.from LL no matter what, even if the ratio between femurs and tibias would remain the same (which it won't with 7 and 3 cm).
And of course.doing 2 surgeries instead of 1, especially as he wrote he would do them (not the second after completely rehabilitation of the first but with only some weeks difference) is an extra recipe for disaster.
But I'll wait for his diary and see if he will do it first of all and especially if he goes with tibias too after seeing how extreme LL is . Because most of people who talk about that ridiculous amounts (most of the times already average or tall) never do it, at least not as they planned it. They do one segment at best and just that.
Take a ruler and see how much 3,5-3,75 cm really is. It is quite a significant amount. Then put the ruler above your knee. Now you will see how much longer your tibia will be after the LL. It makes up quite a difference. Some people only need that little extra to reach their ideal height. The ideal height may differ between people, but the universal consensus for ideal male height is usually between 6'2-6'4" (Western world). My own ideal height is 6'3".
As I wrote in my initial post, the amounts that I am going to lengthen is not written in stone. The final amounts of lengthenings will be determined after consultation with a doctor. If 7 cm (femur) and 3 cm (tibia) is not close to proportional, then I will of course adjust the amounts of lengths and choose the best ratio. I will probably also end up lengthening only up to 8,5 cm, since my height goal is between 191-192 cm.
It might end up that the ratio between the tibia and femur will be something like 5 cm (femur) + 3,75 cm (tibia), whichever amounts of lengths are the most proportional to the original ratio between the bone lengths. By lengthening both segments equally much in proportion to the original ratio, the more intact the biomechanics will be. However, if you lengthen only the femur by up to 7 cm, and the tibia with 0 cm, the ratio will definitely not be the same and as good compared to a situation where both segments are lengthened proportionally.
Why would it be an extra recipe for disaster to do both surgeries in one go and be done with it all, if there are good prerequisites for undergoing the LL?
-
I essentially did what you are describing (you can see in my signature block that I did the surgery 2 times over a few years). The 2nd time my starting height was right around 6 feet (182-183 cm) pre-surgery. Now I stand 188-189 cm (6'2.5"). I mention this range because our bodies naturally shrink/ decompress a bit throughout the day, so those were my heights depending on what time in the day I measured myself (with a stadiometer).
What is the difference in how I feel now/ how I am perceived? Well nowadays, many people who meet me remark how tall I am. That did not occur when I was "only" 6 feet. Many people guess I am in the height range of 6'3-6'4, especially women who meet me. I currently live in the USA and am usually the tallest (or one of the tallest) guys in most rooms. Those things certainly DID NOT occur while I was "only" 6 feet.
So becoming that tall is something that might benefit your mental health (if your goal is to become taller than everyone). But it will not give you any strong social advantages. I agree with some other posters here that the "social advantages" are probably much more noticeable for someone who increases their height from say 5'5" to 5'10" or something around that range. That person is transforming from "short" to "average/ above average". At his newfound 5'10 height, he is now free from height discrimination (and perhaps ridicule/ insensitive comments from others) that he may have heard at his prior 5'5" height. He will no longer be disqualified by women as a dating prospect due to height. He will no longer be identified as "the short guy." And that will free him to achieve great things and be his best self around others, because his height is no longer a barrier socially.
However, in your case, (going from 6' to 6'3), you are going from tall to "very tall." How important is it to you to be "very tall?" If it is important to you personally, maybe it is worth it (it was for me). But if you are trying to improve your dating life or business prospects (societal benefits), then don't expect some sort of radical benefits socially. People will still pretty much treat you the same afterwards, there will not be a radical shift, just because you are now "very tall".
Wow! Thanks for your input! Very nice to hear about your LL experience and how it has affected your life. I am very glad for you.
As I have mentioned somewhere in this thread, I know that I would benefit both proportionally and aesthetically as a whole with a little longer legs. I also see myself as above 190 cm, and the thought of reaching that height simply makes me happy. I also live in Scandinavia, where 6 feet is dead average - above average at best. Going from 6 feet to 6'3" would definitely have a positive impact on my life, but mostly on my own self image, and that is the most important part and reason to make an adjustment to one's height. While 6'3" is tall, I don't consider it very tall. To me, it's just an impressive height.
-
Take a ruler and see how much 3,5-3,75 cm really is. It is quite a significant amount. Then put the ruler above your knee. Now you will see how much longer your tibia will be after the LL. It makes up quite a difference. Some people only need that little extra to reach their ideal height. The ideal height may differ between people, but the universal consensus for ideal male height is usually between 6'2-6'4" (Western world). My own ideal height is 6'3".
As I wrote in my initial post, the amounts that I am going to lengthen is not written in stone. The final amounts of lengthenings will be determined after consultation with a doctor. If 7 cm (femur) and 3 cm (tibia) is not close to proportional, then I will of course adjust the amounts of lengths and choose the best ratio. I will probably also end up lengthening only up to 8,5 cm, since my height goal is between 191-192 cm.
It might end up that the ratio between the tibia and femur will be something like 5 cm (femur) + 3,75 cm (tibia), whichever amounts of lengths are the most proportional to the original ratio between the bone lengths. By lengthening both segments equally much in proportion to the original ratio, the more intact the biomechanics will be. However, if you lengthen only the femur by up to 7 cm, and the tibia with 0 cm, the ratio will definitely not be the same and as good compared to a situation where both segments are lengthened proportionally.
Why would it be an extra recipe for disaster to do both surgeries in one go and be done with it all, if there are good prerequisites for undergoing the LL?
Nowhere in the world the ideal height is 6.4 for a man. Everywhere this height is comsidered from too tall to weirdly tall.
6.25 is the upper limit of a good height (which is a sum of aesthetics and functionality) and in most places 6.1 is perfect.
As a 6.25 man told you, noone cares about your height if you are more than 6ft, literally noone. And breaking both your leg's parts while you are already 6ft is ridiculous itself. Moreover breaking your tibias for 3cm while you think that this is the safest way, although you can just do 1 LL on femurs, gain 5-6 cm and have an already very tall height (6.2).
Anything else doesn't matter. Just write us the doctor that is willing to do a quadrilateral lengthening to you because only that is enough to never consider him as a reliable and sensible doctor.
-
Nowhere in the world the ideal height is 6.4 for a man. Everywhere this height is comsidered from too tall to weirdly tall.
6.25 is the upper limit of a good height (which is a sum of aesthetics and functionality) and in most places 6.1 is perfect.
As a 6.25 man told you, noone cares about your height if you are more than 6ft, literally noone. And breaking both your leg's parts while you are already 6ft is ridiculous itself. Moreover breaking your tibias for 3cm while you think that this is the safest way, although you can just do 1 LL on femurs, gain 5-6 cm and have an already very tall height (6.2).
Anything else doesn't matter. Just write us the doctor that is willing to do a quadrilateral lengthening to you because only that is enough to never consider him as a reliable and sensible doctor.
You're still not addressing the biomechanics point or the fact that lengthening the tibias by 2-3 cm and the femurs by 4-5 cm should in principle be safer than lengthening only the femurs by 7-8 cm. What are your arguments? What are you basing your claims on? And OK maybe you think OP doesn't need LL cause he already has a decent height, but I have similar questions and I'm a much lower height (and I also want about 7-8 cm lengthening) so that doesn't apply to me. Pretend I'm the one who asked.
-
Nowhere in the world the ideal height is 6.4 for a man. Everywhere this height is comsidered from too tall to weirdly tall.
6.25 is the upper limit of a good height (which is a sum of aesthetics and functionality) and in most places 6.1 is perfect.
As a 6.25 man told you, noone cares about your height if you are more than 6ft, literally noone. And breaking both your leg's parts while you are already 6ft is ridiculous itself. Moreover breaking your tibias for 3cm while you think that this is the safest way, although you can just do 1 LL on femurs, gain 5-6 cm and have an already very tall height (6.2).
Anything else doesn't matter. Just write us the doctor that is willing to do a quadrilateral lengthening to you because only that is enough to never consider him as a reliable and sensible doctor.
My height goal i 6'3", which is pretty close to an ideal male height in the western world. I mention the range 6'2-6'4" just to point out that all the heights between 190 cm - 193 cm are being considered, since they all fall into the ideal range of male height, at least in my own opinion. My height goal is not to reach 193 cm or above, but somewhere around 190-192 cm, i.e. somewhere between 6'3 feet and 6'4 feet, but under 6'4 feet. For example, reaching 188-189 cm would not be enough for me. Since I am already +180 cm, the next milestone is 190 cm and above. I would not be satisfied with lengthening only my femurs, since that would leave me in the 180 cm-somewhere height range, considering the max amounts that I am planning to lenghthen each segment (5,75 cm for the femur, for example), and therefore not allow me to reach 190 cm (barefoot night height). I myself care about my height. I don't put much emphasis on what other people think. I am adjusting my height for myself only and for my self-image. The rest I consider as just a bonus.
-
While 11.5cm is "a lot", it's not "crazy"--quadrilateral, not single segment. Unless you consider all LL to be crazy, which many think it is. 7cm femur, 4.5cm tibia is within the safe range.
Congratulations on the bimax surgery and braces. That will without a doubt do FAR MORE for you than LL ever will. How is your hairline? If you're a Norwood 3+, do a hair transplant before LL. I'm being brutally honest with you on what will have the highest ROI.
My recommendation? Get LL after bimax. Why? Because you may change your mind. You may get bimax, get great results and a general quality of life increase that you're looking for professionally and romantically, and realize it's not your height holding you back.
My hairline is fine. As I have mentioned later on in this thread, the reason I am adjusting my height is for myself only and for my self-image.
Thanks for your advice regarding bimax. I have to be in braces for quite a while before my bimax-surgery though, so the operation will not be until somewhere around two years from now, which means there is quite some time for me to wait. If I had the money and the perfect time window for LL before my bimax, I would go for the quadrilateral lengthening just to be done with it once and for all.
-
You're still not addressing the biomechanics point or the fact that lengthening the tibias by 2-3 cm and the femurs by 4-5 cm should in principle be safer than lengthening only the femurs by 7-8 cm. What are your arguments? What are you basing your claims on? And OK maybe you think OP doesn't need LL cause he already has a decent height, but I have similar questions and I'm a much lower height (and I also want about 7-8 cm lengthening) so that doesn't apply to me. Pretend I'm the one who asked.
The biomechamics of doing 6cm on femurs or 7 on femurs and 3 on tibias will have minimal change. In both cases they will be much worse than before LL and in the second one you have tibias broken and lengthened with many risks and of course any segment where LL is done is never as good as without LL.
So for a non significant difference in biomechanics you face many risks, you lose money, time and both your segments will have a huge traumatic surgery like LL for no reason at all becsuse you would have been ok with only one surgery in femurs and the biomechanics would have been almost the same (many people do 6-7cm in femurs only and are fine).
If you still can't understand my points there is no reason to continue.
-
any segment where LL is done is never as good as without LL
OK, I'll take that, thanks for your perspective.
-
The biomechamics of doing 6cm on femurs or 7 on femurs and 3 on tibias will have minimal change. In both cases they will be much worse than before LL and in the second one you have tibias broken and lengthened with many risks and of course any segment where LL is done is never as good as without LL.
So for a non significant difference in biomechanics you face many risks, you lose money, time and both your segments will have a huge traumatic surgery like LL for no reason at all becsuse you would have been ok with only one surgery in femurs and the biomechanics would have been almost the same (many people do 6-7cm in femurs only and are fine).
If you still can't understand my points there is no reason to continue.
This is true.
The only counter argument would be the change in tibia to femur ratio which we know from research has a mean of 0.80 in humans with a standard deviation of 0.02 (i.e. it’s VERY rare to be even slightly off this ratio). Then some people have hypothesized that going away from this ratio by doing one segment of LL could lead to problems like joint degeneration and arthritis.
But then the question is would doing both segments LL to keep the 0.80 tibia to femur ratio actually do more good than bad? Or would the impact of the second surgery actually be more risky and cause more problems than simply having a different tibia to femur ratio.
I think this is an important and central question to LL that unfortunately we dont really have a clear answer to.
-
This is true.
The only counter argument would be the change in tibia to femur ratio which we know from research has a mean of 0.80 in humans with a standard deviation of 0.02 (i.e. it’s VERY rare to be even slightly off this ratio). Then some people have hypothesized that going away from this ratio by doing one segment of LL could lead to problems like joint degeneration and arthritis.
But then the question is would doing both segments LL to keep the 0.80 tibia to femur ratio actually do more good than bad? Or would the impact of the second surgery actually be more risky and cause more problems than simply having a different tibia to femur ratio.
I think this is an important and central question to LL that unfortunately we dont really have a clear answer to.
Exactly, this is what Sky is the Limit and I are trying to find out. Are the increased risks and stress on the body from doing LL on both segments to keep the tibia/femur ratio 0.8 worse than doing single LL but deviating from the tibia/femur ratio? Is doing double LL worse than having a non-typical tibia/femur ratio? Sounds like something Cyborg4Life could research and ask doctors for his channel. Most LL doctors should be able to answer it.
Edit: as luck would have it, Cyborg4Life just posted that he'll be doing an interview with Dr. Paley about Precise Max including a Q&A with questions by us. Perfect, I'll submit this one.
-
This is why these sorts of conversations just go around in circles. If the researchers can't come to any firm conclusions about the Tib/Fib ratio in relation to the development of arthritis, we certainly can't. No one here is in any position to weigh up the cost-benefit here, and no surgeon has enough data to concretely say one way or another.
-
This is why these sorts of conversations just go around in circles. If the researchers can't come to any firm conclusions about the Tib/Fib ratio in relation to the development of arthritis, we certainly can't. No one here is in any position to weigh up the cost-benefit here, and no surgeon has enough data to concretely say one way or another.
Yeah, maybe Dr. Paley will have something to say about it. I just submitted these two questions for Cyborg's Q&A with him:
"A common topic of discussion when it comes to LL is the tibia-to-femur ratio, which for most men tends to be 0.80 with relatively little deviation. Some people claim that deviation from this ratio due to lengthening only one segment can cause various problems, including not just uncanny aesthetics and leg appearance but also altered biomechanics and other physical problems in the future (e.g. arthritis). However, it is also claimed that quadrilateral LL is more dangerous than single-segment LL.
Therefore, assuming time and money are not an issue, is it safer to do quadrilateral LL with per-segment increases such that the tibia-to-femur ratio is preserved, or are the risks of quadrilateral lengthening to end up with a normal tibia-to-femur ratio greater than the risks of doing single LL and ending up with an altered tibia-to-femur ratio? If it matters, I'm thinking of doing 7 cm: either femurs-only, or double, e.g. 4.5 cm for the femurs and 2.5 cm for the tibias (or whatever combination would preserve my ratio as decided by the doctor). Thank you."
"Relating to my previous question of single-segment versus quadrilateral lengthening: it is widely claimed that the risk of LL is determined by the per-segment increase, with each segment having its own safety limit. The general numbers often mentioned are 8 cm for the femurs and 5 cm for the tibias. Does that then mean that if a patient wants for example 7 cm of extra height, and time and money are not an issue, it's safer to divide that increase along the two segments, ending up with per-segment increases further below the safety limits compared to doing the whole increase on the femur, where it would only be 1 cm below? Or do the overall risks of quadrilateral lengthening nullify the decrease in risk from lengthening further below each segment's safety limits? Thank you."
-
I mean the man did say he’s from a Nordic country. If he’s from the Netherlands where average is like 6’0 for all ages and 6’1” for the younger gen, I can see where he’s coming from. This would be the equivalent of a 5’8”-5’9” guy getting CLL, which is on the upper end of the patient spectrum. So I think he’s reasonable in wanting to get this done (if he is from Netherlands or similar). If you guys see photos of the Dutch or read anecdotes by people they say there’s a ton of people in the 6’3”-6’5” range. I’ve even read about a 6’2” guy who visited the country and said for the first time he felt somewhat short.
Sky is the Limit what country are you from?
-
If he’s from the Netherlands where average is like 6’0 for all ages and 6’1” for the younger gen
tbf 5'11.5 for all men and 6'0 for younger gen men, and both numbers are self-reported (https://longreads.cbs.nl/the-netherlands-in-numbers-2021/how-tall-are-dutch-people/) but yeah they're still very tall compared to the global average. But indeed lot of people here getting annoyed with guys in normal height ranges wanting to do LL are coming from a perspective very centric to their country's, not aware of how tall some other countries can be.
-
tbf 5'11.5 for all men and 6'0 for younger gen men, and both numbers are self-reported (https://longreads.cbs.nl/the-netherlands-in-numbers-2021/how-tall-are-dutch-people/) but yeah they're still very tall compared to the global average. But indeed lot of people here getting annoyed with guys in normal height ranges wanting to do LL are coming from a perspective very centric to their country's, not aware of how tall some other countries can be.
Yes this seems like a very US-centric forum, which is understandable considering that height is exceedingly important in American society. But people need to understand that height is relative so a 5’8” man could literally be tall in Indonesia one day, then fly to Northern Europe and become short over night.
So a 6’0” guy in the US wanting CLL is justifiably insane, but not so much for other regions of Europe.
-
The biomechamics of doing 6cm on femurs or 7 on femurs and 3 on tibias will have minimal change. In both cases they will be much worse than before LL and in the second one you have tibias broken and lengthened with many risks and of course any segment where LL is done is never as good as without LL.
So for a non significant difference in biomechanics you face many risks, you lose money, time and both your segments will have a huge traumatic surgery like LL for no reason at all becsuse you would have been ok with only one surgery in femurs and the biomechanics would have been almost the same (many people do 6-7cm in femurs only and are fine).
If you still can't understand my points there is no reason to continue.
It all seems to boil down to you assuming that undergoing LL twice somehow doubles the "lingering" negative effects that LL may have on your legs. But what are these negative effects that you are insinuating? You never mention exactly what these negative effects are that everybody undergoing LL seeminlgy are receptible to regardless of how little or how much they choose to lengthen.
One has to take into consideration what it actually is that is causing any possible pain or is leaving any permanent negative effects. Any possible long-term effects from LL is usually linked with the extensive stretching of the soft tissue and nerves. Because it can't be the bones themselves, since bones simply heal and a broken bone that has healed usually don't leave any permanent damage or lingering pain, if the cut has been "good," that is, if the bone has been clean cut and not splintered into several pieces. However, damaged soft tissue is another story. Soft tissue don't heal as good as bones. Most people who have had a broken bone are not left in any permanent pain. I am not saying that stretching the soft tissue will leave any permanent pain, but if one chooses to stretch them by too much, it certainly increases the risk of any possible permanent damage.
You're not providing any real arguments whatsoever regarding why there is no difference in biomechanics in the outcome regardless of whether one undergo a single, but huge LL, or two separate, but smaller LL:s. Take squatting for example. Wouldn't you agree that the mechanics get totally different with a much longer femur compared to the tibia?
It certainly does affect the fold-ability and proportions. Look for example at this video about squatting and fold-ability, especially from 3:10 onward: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av3LO2GwpAk
I have already decided that I will do a quadrilateral lengthening. I know that I would look more aesthetic with equally longer femurs and tibias in relation to their original ratio than I would with one segment being considerably longer (6-8 cm) than the other one. It would also feel weird and look odd with a really long femur that is not backed up by an equally longer tibia.
Considering all this, I am strongly convinced it is perfectly fine to do a quadrilateral LL by lengthening both segments way within the safety limits - 5,5 cm for femurs and 3,5 cm for tibias - instead of undergoing a huge stretch by 9 cm in only one segment. The "feeling" (which is probably something that you are insinuating on, but not saying openly) in the legs won't be as dramatic as a whole if the segments are lengthened only by a small fraction of their original lengths. By making a huge lengthening in only one segment you are stretching the soft tissue to the limits (depending on how much you lengthen), which in turn will more likely cause problems in the long run than compared to only stretching the tissue within the safe limits. The safety limit for tibias is for example somewhere around 4 cm.
The first logical thought that came to my mind when I started to consider undergoing LL was that I will lengthen both legs in proportion to their original length to each other and not only one leg. I seriously am astounded that people choose to only lengthen one segment. It think the biggest reason why some choose to only lengthen one segment is a matter of cost, not what is actually best for them in the long run, both in regard to aesthetics and functionality.
-
I mean the man did say he’s from a Nordic country. If he’s from the Netherlands where average is like 6’0 for all ages and 6’1” for the younger gen, I can see where he’s coming from. This would be the equivalent of a 5’8”-5’9” guy getting CLL, which is on the upper end of the patient spectrum. So I think he’s reasonable in wanting to get this done (if he is from Netherlands or similar). If you guys see photos of the Dutch or read anecdotes by people they say there’s a ton of people in the 6’3”-6’5” range. I’ve even read about a 6’2” guy who visited the country and said for the first time he felt somewhat short.
Sky is the Limit what country are you from?
I am from Scandinavia, also called the Nordic countries. The Netherlands is not semantically considered as a Nordic country, but a country in Northern Europe.
There are some small differences between the Scandinavian countries when it comes to average height, but being 6'3" would usually not be considered to be very tall or too tall amongst most people in Scandinavia. I would say that the cutting line between being tall and too tall goes somewhere around 6'4" in Scandinavia. For me, with my current height, I don't perceive a person that is 6'3" to be too tall.
-
It all seems to boil down to you assuming that undergoing LL twice somehow doubles the "lingering" negative effects that LL may have on your legs. But what are these negative effects that you are insinuating? You never mention exactly what these negative effects are that everybody undergoing LL seeminlgy are receptible to regardless of how little or how much they choose to lengthen.
One has to take into consideration what it actually is that is causing any possible pain or is leaving any permanent negative effects. Any possible long-term effects from LL is usually linked with the extensive stretching of the soft tissue and nerves. Because it can't be the bones themselves, since bones simply heal and a healed broken bone usually don't leave any permanent damage or lingering pain, if the cut has been "good," that is, if the bone has been clean cut and not splintered into several pieces. However, damaged soft tissue is another story. Soft tissue don't heal as good as bones. Most people who have had a broken bone are not left in any permanent pain. I am not saying that stretching the soft tissue will leave any permanent pain, but if one chooses to stretch them by too much, it certainly increases the risk of any possible permanent damage.
You're not providing any real arguments whatsoever regarding why there is no difference in biomechanics in the outcome regardless of whether one undergo a single, but huge LL, or two separate, but smaller LL:s. Take squatting for example. Wouldn't you agree that the mechanics get totally different with a much longer femur compared to the tibia?
It certainly does affect the fold-ability and proportions. Look for example at this video about squatting and fold-ability, especially from 3:10 onward: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av3LO2GwpAk
I have already decided that I will do a quadrilateral lengthening. I know that I would look more aesthetic with equally longer femurs and tibias in relation to their original ratio than I would with one segment being considerably longer (6-8 cm) than the other one. It would also feel weird and look odd with a really long femur that is not backed up by an equally longer tibia.
Considering all this, I am strongly convinced it is perfectly fine to do a quadrilateral LL by lengthening both segments way within the safety limits - 5,5 cm for femurs and 3,5 cm for tibias - instead of undergoing a huge stretch by 9 cm in only one segment. The "feeling" (which is probably something that you are insinuating on, but not saying openly) in the legs won't be as dramatic as a whole if the segments are lengthened only by a small fraction of their original lengths. By making a huge lengthening in only one segment you are stretching the soft tissue to the limits (depending on how much you lengthen), which in turn will more likely cause problems in the long than compared to only stretching the tissue within the safe limits. The safety limit for tibias is for example somewhere around 4 cm.
The first logical thought that came to my mind when I started to consider undergoing LL was that I will lengthen both legs in proportion to their original length to each other and not only one leg. I seriously am astounded that people choose to only lengthen one segment. It think the biggest reason why some choose to only lengthen one segment is a matter of cost, not what is actually best for them in the long run, both in regard to aesthetics and functionality.
THIS!👆 i got the same point of view, people say tibias have hogher chance of complication, but complication can be reduced to minimum by a skilled surgeon so the argument itself is eh.
-
Yeah, maybe Dr. Paley will have something to say about it. I just submitted these two questions for Cyborg's Q&A with him:
"A common topic of discussion when it comes to LL is the tibia-to-femur ratio, which for most men tends to be 0.80 with relatively little deviation. Some people claim that deviation from this ratio due to lengthening only one segment can cause various problems, including not just uncanny aesthetics and leg appearance but also altered biomechanics and other physical problems in the future (e.g. arthritis). However, it is also claimed that quadrilateral LL is more dangerous than single-segment LL.
Therefore, assuming time and money are not an issue, is it safer to do quadrilateral LL with per-segment increases such that the tibia-to-femur ratio is preserved, or are the risks of quadrilateral lengthening to end up with a normal tibia-to-femur ratio greater than the risks of doing single LL and ending up with an altered tibia-to-femur ratio? If it matters, I'm thinking of doing 7 cm: either femurs-only, or double, e.g. 4.5 cm for the femurs and 2.5 cm for the tibias (or whatever combination would preserve my ratio as decided by the doctor). Thank you."
"Relating to my previous question of single-segment versus quadrilateral lengthening: it is widely claimed that the risk of LL is determined by the per-segment increase, with each segment having its own safety limit. The general numbers often mentioned are 8 cm for the femurs and 5 cm for the tibias. Does that then mean that if a patient wants for example 7 cm of extra height, and time and money are not an issue, it's safer to divide that increase along the two segments, ending up with per-segment increases further below the safety limits compared to doing the whole increase on the femur, where it would only be 1 cm below? Or do the overall risks of quadrilateral lengthening nullify the decrease in risk from lengthening further below each segment's safety limits? Thank you."
OK, Paley answered the first one, he said there's no evidence of altering the tibia-to-femur ratio with bilateral LL leading to arthritis or other negative health effects long-term. The only study that indicates such a thing is one conducted on cadavers of people with arthritis, and the findings were that they were naturally born with an abnormal t/f ratio and that was correlated with arthritis. He also said he performed his first cosmetic LL in 1988 and in the 35 years since then he has seen no evidence of patients who underwent bilateral LL developing arthritis. The only real factor is the cosmetic one.
Unfortunately due to time constraints or other reasons Cyborg didn't ask the second one. Maybe at another Q&A.
-
OK, Paley answered the first one, he said there's no evidence of altering the tibia-to-femur ratio with bilateral LL leading to arthritis or other negative health effects long-term. The only study that indicates such a thing is one conducted on cadavers of people with arthritis, and the findings were that they were naturally born with an abnormal t/f ratio and that was correlated with arthritis. He also said he performed his first cosmetic LL in 1988 and in the 35 years since then he has seen no evidence of patients who underwent bilateral LL developing arthritis. The only real factor is the cosmetic one.
Unfortunately due to time constraints or other reasons Cyborg didn't ask the second one. Maybe at another Q&A.
And his answer is really a microcosm of what we see on this forum on a daily basis -- a muddy amalgamation of anecdotal evidence and layperson's interpretation of research, then dispelled by someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
Of course, the forum's greatest asset is its anecdotal content -- the individual experiences (diaries) of people who have gone through this are invaluable. What's completely unhelpful, though, is when the continual appeals to understand the ins and outs of this procedure are met with the same anecdotal discourse and nothing more than an un-informed opinion touted as fact.
-
OK, Paley answered the first one, he said there's no evidence of altering the tibia-to-femur ratio with bilateral LL leading to arthritis or other negative health effects long-term. The only study that indicates such a thing is one conducted on cadavers of people with arthritis, and the findings were that they were naturally born with an abnormal t/f ratio and that was correlated with arthritis. He also said he performed his first cosmetic LL in 1988 and in the 35 years since then he has seen no evidence of patients who underwent bilateral LL developing arthritis. The only real factor is the cosmetic one.
Unfortunately due to time constraints or other reasons Cyborg didn't ask the second one. Maybe at another Q&A.
For what it's worth, I actually had a follow up consult yesterday with Giotikas and asked him this question regarding whether altering the 0.8 femur/tibia ratio leads to arthritis and/or loss of biomechanical functioning. Giotikas essentially gave the same response as Paley.
I am summarizing what he said, but here it is- Giotikas said
"there have never been any studies (Giotikas had seen) to suggest that altering the ratio leads to arthritis or biomechanical problems down the line. He has operated a lot of deformity correction cases (i.e. non cosmetic) and there were never any instances where altering the proportions was the cause for functioning reductions either.
The key to avoiding those types of problems is preserving the mechanical axis of the leg, which a skilled LL surgeon should know how to do. According to his experience and knowledge of studies, there is no clear benefit (to functionality in the legs/ body) from preserving the proportions.
Proportion (femur to tibia ratio) is an individualized decision. Doing both femurs and tibias gives you a more proportional result, but it also comes with 2 surgeries. This carries double the risk of complications and nearly double the time and double the cost. "
//////////////////// BREAK (My thoughts on this matter)
So I guess (and now these are my thoughts, not Giotikas), it makes very little sense to do quadrilaterals because you think it will give you better biomechanical functioning. I would argue the opposite as the LL surgery (on whatever segment you end up choosing) in and of itself will LOWER THE FUNCTIONING OF THAT SEGMENT you do, no matter how good your outcome is. If you get a femur surgery, you will NEVER be able to move your femurs as fast as you did previously, and thus you will never fully regain your prior sprinting speed. If you do quadrilaterals and now add tibias to the mix, that exacerbates the functionality issue even more. Now you have reduced the functionality of both segments simply because both segments underwent LL. So if your goal is preserving biomechanical functionality, it seems to me that doing the surgery on both segments (even if you only lengthen a small amount in each, say 5 cm femurs, 3 cm tibias) would reduce the functioning of your body far more due to the compound effects of having 2 LL surgeries. It would do more damage than if you maxed out your femurs (say 8 cm) and then never touched your tibias whatsoever.
But again, I am not a surgeon and that last thought is my 2 cents on this (complicated/ confusing topic), so please take it with a grain of salt and form your own conclusions. Or better yet, bring this matter up with your prospective surgeons when you schedule your consultations.
This leads me to my conclusion. I see 2 reasons to consider doing quadrilateral LL right from the start-
1). proportion is so important to you (from an aesthetic standpoint) that you simply will be horrified looking at yourself in the mirror after a femur LL because your femurs are now out of proportion with your tibias. You think this is a major problem or could become one for you. I can't make that decision for you, but I will share a personal anecdote below of why I think this reason is not the best reason to do quads.
2). You are certain that your lengthening goals are 9 cm or above and you would not be satisfied with anything less. Then I believe it IS worth considering quadrilaterals so that you do not dramatically exceed what are commonly the upper limits of femur lengthening (7-8 cm) and tibia lengthening (5-6 cm).
However, if you are simply trying to gain more height, aren't so worried about proportions, and think you would be satisfied with 8 cm AND do not care so much about the aesthetic proportion factor, I think maybe you should consider starting off with just a femur LL and see how you feel after that.
I can tell you that after my femur surgery, there was literally not a single person who (from what I could tell) ever looked at me and seemed to exhibit any sort of curiosity as to why my femurs seemed so much longer to my tibias. And of course nobody ever actually said anything.
I really feel that nobody (or at least very few people) are analyzing your legs and trying to figure out if your femurs/ tibias match a certain ratio or if your legs are symmetrical to your torso.
After my surgery, I felt nobody seemed to care about my new proportions, not even women who saw me walking around unclothed and thus got a great look at my proportions while those body parts were very much "on display" ;)
-
Does the quadrilateral, lengthen by 1mm / 0.75mm per day (femur/tibia)? or only 0.75 mm / 0.5 mm per day?
-
Thanks for your input! Of course LL will always have some kind of effect on the functionality, but the question is by how much. There are numerous examples of people that have fully regained and retained their former athletic ability after undergoing quadrilateral leg lengthening. I believe that it is possible to minimize the loss of functionality as much as possible by keeping the amount of lengthening way within the safe limits.
So I guess (and now these are my thoughts, not Giotikas), it makes very little sense to do quadrilaterals because you think it will give you better biomechanical functioning. I would argue the opposite as the LL surgery (on whatever segment you end up choosing) in and of itself will LOWER THE FUNCTIONING OF THAT SEGMENT you do, no matter how good your outcome is. If you get a femur surgery, you will NEVER be able to move your femurs as fast as you did previously, and thus you will never fully regain your prior sprinting speed. If you do quadrilaterals and now add tibias to the mix, that exacerbates the functionality issue even more. Now you have reduced the functionality of both segments simply because both segments underwent LL. So if your goal is preserving biomechanical functionality, it seems to me that doing the surgery on both segments (even if you only lengthen a small amount in each, say 5 cm femurs, 3 cm tibias) would reduce the functioning of your body far more due to the compound effects of having 2 LL surgeries. It would do more damage than if you maxed out your femurs (say 8 cm) and then never touched your tibias whatsoever.
I think this is kind of a broad statement that leaves a lot of questions unasnwered.
You are essentially implying that the loss of functionality is somehow static and equal for everyone, when in fact it is highly dependent on a lot of different factors, one major one being the amount of lengthening.
There has to be degrees in loss of functionality which could be determined in relation to the amount one chooses to lengthen. If a patient's femur bones are cut, but lengthened with 0 mm, that is, not lengthened at all, there should not be any permanent effects in the functionality after the bones have healed. I draw this conclusion only based on the fact that the soft tissue have not been streched. If the bone is cut and lengthened by only 1 cm, there should not be any noticeable effect on functionality after healing and rigorous physiotherapy. If the bones have been lengthened by 2-3 cm, the difference in athletic ability should be non-existent, even if the soft tissue has been streched a little bit. The soft tissue can be streched up to a certain amount before the effect that it may have on the functionality of the legs starts to be noticeable. According to studies found, the recommended amount of lengthening the femur bone is 7 cm (Wagner H: Operative lengthening of the femur. Clin Orthop 136: 125–142, 1978).
The question here is. Would lengthening the femur by 8-9 cm affect the functionality so much that in total it is more harmful for your athletic ability and functionality compared to a situation where you divide the lengthening into two smaller ones for each segment?
The more length that is added after a certain point, the more it increases the risk of affecting the functionality of the legs in a negative way. Every increase in millimeter above a certain point (the safe limit) increases the loss of functionality more or less exponentially. This would mean that a lengthening of 9 cm will have a multifold negative effect on functionality in comparison to a situation where the same amount of lengthening is divided into two separate, but smaller, lengthenings in both segments, for example femur 5 cm and tibia 4 cm. The compound effect of two smaller lengthenings in terms of loss of functionality would not be as dramatic as it would be in the case where you lengthen your femur with more than 8 cm.
However, this is a debatable subject, and whichever strategy that would be most suitable in a specific situation way vary between people and is a thing that is best discussed with the surgeon that is going to perform the surgery.
-
Based on the discussions here, I have contemplated two different strategies for my own leg lengthening journey and I will provide them here as a way to concretize my own thoughts and plans of going through with this surgery.
My goal is to have a height between 190 and 192 cm around the clock, ie. throughout the whole day and night. This means that I am okay with having a little higher morning height.
Strategy 1: The quadrilateral procedure from the get go (all in one go)
Doing 5 cm femur + 4 cm tibia seems like a perfect quadrilateral LL plan for me. Both segments will preserve the ratio of 0.8 with these amounts of lengthening. It seems that a ratio of 5 cm femur + 4 cm tibia would be a perfect fit for me, because it is exactly within the 0.8 f/t-ratio. I still have to make exact measurments of my bones with x-rays to determine how much I would lengthen them if I would follow this strategy. Preserving the ratio as intact as possible may not leave any room for regrets later on, because the lengthening process could not have been done more optimally in regard to keeping the ratio, and, by extension, the biomechanics and functionality, as intact as possible. I know for sure that I would feel more secured and confident about my choice if I know I have lengthened both segments in accordance to the standard ratio of 0.8.
The downside of going through a quadrilateral lengthening all in one go is that it is more stressing on the body, both the lengthening procedure and time to heal is a lot longer compared to lengthening only one segment, and the cost is higher (almost double).
Strategy 2: The prolonged quadrilateral lengthening procedure (femur first and tibia sometimes later on in life)
In this strategy, I would start of by only lengthening my femurs with around 7 cm in order to reach a morning height of 190 cm and call it a day, leaving the possibility open for further lengthening later on.
The only problem with this is that if I choose to only lengthen my femur by 7 cm, and then later on lengthen my tibias, I would have to lenghten my tibias by 5,6 cm (7 cm * 0,8) in order to preserve my femur/tibia-ratio as a 0.8, which would leave me at a morning height of 195,6 cm-196,1 cm (183 cm - 183,5 cm + 7 cm + 5,6 cm), which in turn would definitely be way too tall for me and my taste. If I chose to "feel the water" by starting of with only one segment with the intention to later on add more height by lengthening the tibias also, I would either have to lengthen my femurs by only 5 cm or choose to get a little more skewed tibia/femur-ratio due to only lengthening my tibias by up to 4 cm. I also think that lengthening the femur by only 5 cm is a tad small amount to lengthen the femurs considering how much you can safely lengthen them without receiving any serious complications. This is why I would rather choose to lengthen my femurs with at least 7 cm while I am at it.
Starting off with lengthening my femurs by around 7 cm (instead of going through a quadrilateral lengthening process from the get go) would allow me to keep the possibility open to later on reach a higher end-height by undergoing an additional lengthening of the tibias by up to 4 cm. This is, in one way, a future-proof way in the whole grand scheme of leg lengthening, in that it gives me room to reach an even higher height than would be the case if I chose to undergo a quadrilateral lengthening as described above in Strategy 1. It would also give me a direct benefit more quickly, with less struggle and less money spent. One should also take into account the possibility of some shrinking of the spine due to age. By leaving room to later on add more height by also lengthening the tibias, it would allow me to adjust my height goal in accordance to how I perceive my new height and it would also leave me with a fail-safe in case the height growth of the future generation will get completely out of hands.
The only downside with choosing this strategy is that it would leave me with a skewed femur/tibia-ratio (at least for a certain amount of years). It may also leave me with the feeling that I have left the whole procedure half-done, at least until the moment I choose to lengthen my tibias also. However, it feels much more tempting to follow this strategy than the first one and makes me more excited about this whole procedure. The benefits of choosing this strategy is that it would be more cost effective than going through a quadrilateral lengthening from the get go and it would give me the desired height more quickly and with less taxing on the body.
-
After having this issue processed in my unconsciousness for quite a while now, I have come to the conclusion that the above described "strategy 2" would be the best alternative for me, considering my individual situation and my desire for wanting to keep as many possibilities as possible open for the future.
I have been able to take into account many different aspects of the surgery; time spent lengthening and time spent in the rehabilitation phase, cost of surgery by opting to only do one segment initially, desired outcome in regard to height goal, simplicity, and the possibility to contemplate by how much I want to lengthen my tibias in the future.
If I go through the femur lengthening without any considerable complications, I may, however, want to do the tibias as soon as possible after my femur lengthening in order to regain a somewhat similar pre-surgery femur/tibia-ratio.
I am considering of doing this surgery in Greece using the Guichet nail. I still have to familiarize myself more with the advantages and disadvantages with the different nails. However, the Guichet nail seems to be an overall good fit for me since it allows full weight bearing with crutches from the day of the surgery. I want to fly back to my home country as soon as possible after the surgery and start my lengthening and rehabilitation/recovery phase and regain my independence as fast as possible.