Print

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

[TIBIKE200]

And here is one on HUMANS. 3 acondroplastics so not normal cases..

 To be noted that the distraction was of 1mm a day (4 times a day of 0.25mm every 6 hours) for a total elongation of 10cm.

Result show alot of muscle damage and poor adaptation (as opposed to what was seen in the goats)

http://www.bio.unipd.it/bam/PDF/5-2/Scelsi.pdf

[JConnor]

There is one big flaw with your logic though... Human cells arent bigger than rabbit cells... Just like elefant cells arent bigger than human cells.. Thus the damage to a single cell would be the same. It also depends on the sarcomer length (the "muscle functional unit").
 The only difference between humans, rabbits and elefants is the numebr of cells but not the size

What? This is what I said: "assume that human and rabbit muscle cells are the same size"

If they are the same size, and then a human tibia, which is 4 times longer than a rabbit tibia, should have about 4 times more muscle cells length-wise. Since the stretching is divided among 4 times more cells, each cell stretches less and is at less risk for damage.

[applesandoranges]

I would guess that having flexible legs pre-op would reduce the damage like in those studies. Especially if you do a smaller amount, say 3.5cm instead of something crazy like 8cm. When you get to like 6-8cm I would imagine your muscles will get "stretching damage". Does anybody know at what length the body has to produce muscle that is stretched?

[TIBIKE200]

I would guess that having flexible legs pre-op would reduce the damage like in those studies. Especially if you do a smaller amount, say 3.5cm instead of something crazy like 8cm. When you get to like 6-8cm I would imagine your muscles will get "stretching damage". Does anybody know at what length the body has to produce muscle that is stretched?

Yep. This is why flexibility is much much much more important than muscle mass. About your safety length, it wasnt discussed... But on the goat study, they said that damage begin after 20% of original length

[maximize]

Great research TIBIKE.

To be honest, I always wonder why people care so much about minor muscle deterioration though.

I've never been able to play sports. The last competitive sports team I made it onto I was 11 years old.

I don't get what people are thinking they are losing out on.

How many professional or semi-professional 5'4"-5'7" athletes do we have on this site? 

For me, the only reason I hesitate to do the surgery is the requirement to be off work for 6 months. I don't know how to manage that. Otherwise, losing 5-20% of your "athleticism" due to muscle scarring is insignificant to me.

As long as I could walk at a normal pace after, and ideally not develop premature arthritis due to misalignment of my joints, nothing would change for me.

[682]

Bump for interesting discussion on lengthening rate.

[onemorefoot]

A rate of lengthening of 1.75mm when risk of premature consolidation is possible?

[682]

A rate of lengthening of 1.75mm when risk of premature consolidation is possible?

Possible? Yes. Highly likely to permanently damage your soft tissue? Yes.

[asfastaslight]

Of course you could get a huge injury and have way worse muscle from it say a car crash, oh isn't LL needed for legs that aren't the same length after one?  Just saying this surgery isn't that insane.

[Jack1066]

bump to keep track of this discussion

It's interesting that the studies on goats said 20% was the safe limit for soft tissue, is that 20% of the initial length of the bone or the section of the leg?

[TIBIKE200]

of the bone length

[682]

Of course you could get a huge injury and have way worse muscle from it say a car crash, oh isn't LL needed for legs that aren't the same length after one?  Just saying this surgery isn't that insane.

Most people wouldn't consent to having a car crash that results in permanent, irrevocable damage to their lower extremities resulting in shattered bones, decreased athletic ability, possible permanent pain and long term complications. Actually electing to undergo such a serious surgery that will definitely damage you to the point you won't recover for extra height is somewhat insane but worth it for some. Your argument is completely flawed, it's like saying limb lengthening injuries aren't serious because some people have to have their limbs amputated.

bump to keep track of this discussion

It's interesting that the studies on goats said 20% was the safe limit for soft tissue, is that 20% of the initial length of the bone or the section of the leg?

I'm not sure what you mean Jack, sorry. By 20%, it means not lengthening above 20% of the original bone length of that segment, for example, if you theoretically had a 30CM tibia, not lengthening above 6CM which would be 20% of the original bone length, resulting in 120% of the original length or 36CM.

That being said, there are other studies that warn of complications with soft tissue when lengthening a segment beyond 10-15% leading to over-lengthening/plastic deformation so it could be completely personal or that the complications are much more severe than shorter lengthening beyond that point. I believe there is a limit to which you can reasonably lengthen where your soft tissue won't be damaged substantially, but I'm yet to see conclusive evidence and it's well below what most people here desire - clearly rate of lengthening plays a big part also no matter the length.

[682]

of the bone length

I've just realized you were the original poster of this thread, thank you for sharing it with us TIBIKE200.

[TIBIKE200]

I've just realized you were the original poster of this thread, thank you for sharing it with us TIBIKE200.

You are welcome

[Jack1066]

Thanks for the information, no I meant the section of the soft tissue as the femoral bone is quite a bit longer than the soft tissue section of the upper leg on its own. If I'm clear.

Solomin to my knowledge recommends only 10%-15% lengthening but allows 20% lengthening of the initial length of the bone at the most so that seems to add up with what you're saying 682.

And yes, thanks TIBIKE!