Print

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

[Philosopher]

Considering if you have slightly longer femurs and/or tibias, how much can that affect the overall lenghtening and healing process?  Does the potential lenghtening amount really depend on the length-ratio between femur and tibia?

[TheDream]

Yes, body is naturally built for a 0.8 tibia to femur ratio. This affects the center of gravity which then affects the joints, muscles, ligaments etc.

Essentially, the more you deviate from the ratio the more trouble long term. However, this is a simplified explanation, as doing two surgeries (both tibias and femurs) to restore the ratio will result in its own set of problems from the surgeries themselves, which will vary from person to person.

[DanishViking]

Good question honestly. Having longer femurs compared to tibias is way healthier, were as the opposite is risky. See this study:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26398436/

[Marie_Bard]

Good question honestly. Having longer femurs compared to tibias is way healthier, were as the opposite is risky. See this study:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26398436/

Giotikas has done some research on proportions as well https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/1358-992X.2018.8.008

[YOUNGandSTRONG]

And if hypothetically a person lengthens 10 cm in the femur and tibia, the femur-tibia relationship would logically be maintained. With the exception of the upper body of course

[lovinglonglegs]

Yes, body is naturally built for a 0.8 tibia to femur ratio. This affects the center of gravity which then affects the joints, muscles, ligaments etc.

Essentially, the more you deviate from the ratio the more trouble long term. However, this is a simplified explanation, as doing two surgeries (both tibias and femurs) to restore the ratio will result in its own set of problems from the surgeries themselves, which will vary from person to person.

is there supporting document for that besides https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26398436/ ? especially where did 'center of gravity' come from?

[markr09]

And if hypothetically a person lengthens 10 cm in the femur and tibia, the femur-tibia relationship would logically be maintained. With the exception of the upper body of course

There are people who have 6' height that has the same sitting height as low as people with 5'3. I think the vertical difference of the spine/torso isn't as significant as the legs for a lot of people. I do think the proportions of the arms to legs are much more important, and maintain within the range of the femur to tibia ratio +/- a few .0X apart from the min and max.

[LLprime3]

Good question honestly. Having longer femurs compared to tibias is way healthier, were as the opposite is risky. See this study:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26398436/

This refers to people who ARE BORN with weird proportions, isn't it? And the underlying meaning behind being born that way.

Limb lengthening doesn't create a disease out of thin air just because you chance proportions on a healthy born body.

[Thekollecter]

LLprime is right I ask dr assayg and he said that study doesn't mean anything he said you can lengthen tibia only and have weird proportions and that doesn't increase risk of Arthiritis

[jlk]

i was encouraged by a sales rep to get my tibias done first and i'm glad i chose not to. i ended up doing only femurs only and am much happier due to the fact that it's easier to regain "explosiveness" in your sprint with just femurs. i'm sure you can eventually get it back with tibias as well, but just looking at the femurs vs tibias you can see that the femur is much more substantial in size.