Limb Lengthening Research Papers
ORIGINAL CLINICAL ARTICLE
Cosmetic Limb Leg Lengthening: What Are The Limits?
F. Guerreschi, H. Tsibidakis
Received: 25 October 2016 / Accepted: 25 October 2016 / Published online: 11 November 2016
Page 2 - Patient inclusion criteria
All patients were evaluated by an expert medical team who
examined the impact of short stature on the patient’s
everyday life, and how they might cope with difficulties
encountered during treatment. Actual and perceived problems
related to short stature were also taken into account.
Difficulties in daily work and life, driving motorcycles or large bicycles were also considered. Functional limitations
of short stature were considered a valid and good motivation
for gaining height surgically. Patients requested surgery
particularly for professional reasons, such as military
or police career, models, and business people who felt
uncomfortable in meetings etc. due to their short stature.
Regarding height distribution, the normal bell curve was
considered, and patients were divided as shown in Table 1.
Normal height was considered ±3 standard deviations (SD)
from the mean. A stature below 3SD in patients without
dwarfism and/or skeletal deformities was considered as a
constitutional short stature. The lower limit of normal
stature for Caucasian people was 50500 (166 cm) for males
and 50000 (153 cm) for females.
All patients who underwent cosmetic leg lengthening
were under the 5th percentile for age and gender, and
without any dwarfism and/or skeletal deformities or hormonal
deficiencies. A detailed history of all previous aesthetic
interventions was included to exclude
dysmorphophobia [5–7].
Psychological evaluation of all patients and their families,
anthropometrical measurements with particular attention
to the proportions of the limbs and trunk, and
radiological examination for deformity and/or leg length
discrepancy were performed. Patients were also informed
about the duration of treatment and all the possible complications
during surgery and after removal of the frame.
Informed consent was obtained from all patients. Patients
who accepted to undergo surgery were also invited to
discuss their treatment with at least two other patients
before and after surgery.
In cases of deformity and leg discrepancy, simultaneous
correction was also obtained.
Patients and methods
The study was performed according to the ethical
standards of the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and its
later amendments. From January 1985 to December 2010 the medical records of 63 patients with constitutional
short stature (36 males, 27 females for a total of
126 legs) who underwent cosmetic bilateral leg lengthening
using a hybrid advanced fixator according to the
Ilizarov method, were reviewed retrospectively [4, 8, 9].
The mean age was 24.8 years (range 17–48 years; 27.8
for males and 22.9 for females) while the mean preoperative
height was 152.6 cm (range 140–172 cm;
154.4 cm for males and 145.2 cm for females). Eight
patients also had varus knee deformity which required
correction during treatment. All patients practiced noncompetitive
sports.
Preoperative clinical/radiographic evaluation and surgical
planning were performed for all patients.
Paley’s criteria were used to evaluate complications
for this procedure, including postoperative assessment
of all problems, obstacles and complications from the
time of surgery until 1 year after removal of the frame
[8].
Problems were defined as any potential difficulties
arising during the treatment period and fully resolved by
the end of the process by non-operative means. Pin track
infection, docking drift, wound breakdown, and delayed
consolidation were included in this category.
Obstacles were defined as any potential difficulties
arising during the treatment period and fully resolved by
the end of the process by operative means. Non-union,
joint contracture, atrophic or fracture through regenerated
bone, axial deviation, leg length discrepancy, equinus,
and early fibular consolidation were included in this
category.
Complications were defined as any local or systemic
complication (intraoperative/postoperative) or difficulty
found during the stretching or stabilization that remained
unresolved until the end of the treatment period, and any
early or late difficulty observed after treatment. Persistent
knee contraction, amputation due to non-union/poor
regenerate bone or persistent infection, reflex sympathetic
dystrophy and neurological disturbances were included in
this category [10].