From what I've read, humerus lengthening is less dangerous than CLL however provides much less benefit so there's not much reason for it to be done. But everyone on here acts as if it's much riskier.
This forum needs to pay more attention to scientific studies in general. We are biased to hear bad outcomes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323419/ "The humerus is the best place for bone lengthening".
"We found that the humerus had almost the same healing index (range: 25–40 day/cm) as the bones of the lower extremity, but patients who had humeral lengthening had a faster functional recovery. Functional recovery following tibial or femoral lengthening takes about 32 months; this is in contrast with humeral lengthening, which takes only 8 months"
We know that most people recover well enough to function properly in around 8 months from femoral and tibial lengthenings, however they might be talking about more extreme situations and are also talking about frames. I assume they mean absolute full max recovery.
here they are lengthening like 8cm which is probably the absolute max you would ever have to do to compensate for cll. Paley goes up to 5cm. Obviously I think the first few weeks of this would be very bad and probably worse than cll just because of your limitations, but using a WB nail (which paley does) I dont see how this would be even remotely as difficult as CLL is in the long run. You also consider that when you lengthen both arms it's not like legs, 5cm of lengthening gives 10cm wingspan.
perhaps if you are very rich you could stagger the lengthening by a few weeks (obviously this would add an extra procedure cost to put the second nail in). Using wb nail this would be a far easier process in theory.
interested in what others think and to see if there are any contradictory studies.
Author
Topic: Why do people assume humerus lengthening is more/equally dangerous to legs (Read 2169 times)