Limb Lengthening Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: How much did LL surgery technology improve in the last 10 years ?  (Read 494 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Itachi

  • Visitor
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10

I feel like LL surgery is way more common than it was before, is it because of new technology or something ?

If 10 years ago I wanted to get 8cm on my femurs with the external LON method, what would be different than getting it today ?
Logged

RealLostSoul

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re: How much did LL surgery technology improve in the last 10 years ?
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2022, 03:02:17 PM »

I feel like LL surgery is way more common than it was before, is it because of new technology or something ?

If 10 years ago I wanted to get 8cm on my femurs with the external LON method, what would be different than getting it today ?

With externals: nothing

New and better internal nails nowadays
Logged

Siegfried

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 335
Re: How much did LL surgery technology improve in the last 10 years ?
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2022, 05:34:39 PM »

Not that much tbh.  Precice 1 - The first partial weightbearing magnetic internal nail came out around 2011/12. I think limit was around 20-30 pounds. Obviously we had stryde in the meantime, which was full weightbearing, however it was withdrawn last year. Now we are left with partial weightbearing precice 2, which is the successor of that very first magnetic nail 10 years ago.

Logged
Unilateral Quadrilateral Lengthening 2021/22 w/ Koehne
Pre-Surgery: 1.67 m
Post-Surgery: 1.76 m
My Story: http://www.limblengtheningforum.com/index.php?topic=68285.msg221238#msg221238

TheDream

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 327
Re: How much did LL surgery technology improve in the last 10 years ?
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2022, 06:20:52 PM »

We need better tech when it comes to distraction.

Instead of having “clicks” or discrete jumps of 0.33mm lengthening all at once we need much more slow and continuous lengthening over long time periods when the patient is sleeping or similar to mimic the natural lengthening mechanisms and reduce the tension / pressure on the soft tissue.

I remember Paley said they’ve basically made accomplished this along with making the equipment much smaller. No idea when we will see it used though.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up