Methods/Compare
Compare methods side by side
Pick any three techniques and see how they actually differ, from internal magnetic nails to external hexapod frames. No method is "best" in the abstract; the right one depends on your goal and your surgeon.
| What it is | Magnetically-driven internal nail — the current global standard for cosmetic and reconstructive lengthening. | A hybrid technique: external fixator drives distraction while an internal nail provides stability — fixator removed earlier than classical Ilizarov. | The original circular-frame external fixator method — workhorse of reconstructive limb lengthening for four decades. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Internal · magnetic nail | Hybrid (nail + frame) | External fixator |
| Status | Current | Current | Current |
| Typical gain | 5–8 cm | 5–8 cm | 3–10 cm |
| Bones | Femur, Tibia | Femur, Tibia | Femur, Tibia, Humerus |
| Recovery | 12–24 weeks | 16–28 weeks | 20–40 weeks |
| Advantages |
|
|
|
| Trade-offs |
|
|
|
| Maker | NuVasive Specialized Orthopedics (Globus Medical, since Sept 2023) | — | — |
| Full page → | Full page → | Full page → |
Method is a decision to make with your surgeon based on their experience and your goal, not a shortlist ranking. Ranges are typical figures from published series; individual results vary.