Increase Height And Grow Taller Using Vertebroplasty And Percutaneous Vertebroplasty

There is another surgical type called Vertebroplasty which I just discovered done by orthopedic surgeons which seems to lead to increased height. It seems that the Vertebroplasty method has been compared already to the kyphoplasty method and the height increases have been compared with the results showing that kyphoplasty results in more height increase of 5 mm as compare to the 2-3 mm increase shown by people who go through vertebroplasty. Overall, this is a completely new development for this website and I will need to do further research to see what are the clinical and current possibilities of using vertebroplasty and/or kyphoplasty for possible future cosmetic reasons to increase in height.

The issue with vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty is that the two are similar in principle, with a type of cement block placed in the vertebrate at an angle to realign the vertebrate to be straighter.

Increase in Vertebral Body Height after Vertebroplasty

Akio Hiwatashia, Toshio Moritania, Yuji Numaguchia and Per-Lennart Westessona+Author Affiliations

^aFrom the Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
Address reprint requests to Akio Hiwatashi, M.D., Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 648, Rochester, NY 14642-8648

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

During clinical work, we have seen increases in vertebral body height associated with vertebroplasty, but our literature search revealed no reports as to how often and to what degree those increases occur. The purpose of this study was to document the frequency and degree of changes in vertebral body height after vertebroplasty.

METHODS:

The heights of 85 vertebral bodies in 37 patients were measured before and after vertebroplasty. In addition, one adjacent vertebral body was measured in each patient as a control. Twenty-six patients had compression fractures in the thoracic spine, and 24 patients had compression fractures in the lumbar spine. Vertebroplasty was performed with a bilateral transpedicular approach by injecting polymethylmethacrylate, under biplane fluoroscopic control. Measurements were performed on preoperative MR images and on postoperative CT sagittal reformations. Anterior, central, and posterior vertebral body height measurements were obtained in the midsagittal plane.

RESULTS:

The average increase in vertebral body height was 2.5 mm anteriorly, 2.7 mm centrally, and 1.4 mm posteriorly. Thirteen of 85 treated vertebrae remained unchanged. All control vertebral bodies also remained unchanged.

CONCLUSION:

Vertebral body height often increases during vertebroplasty. The clinical significance of increasing vertebral body height is unknown.

Significance of Dynamic Mobility in Restoring Vertebral Body Height in Vertebroplasty

Y.-J. Chena,c, H.-Y. Chenb, P.-P. Tsaib, D.-F. Loa, H.-T. Chena and H.-C. Hsua,c – Author Affiliations
^aDepartments of Orthopedic Surgery (Y.-J.C., D.-F.L., H.-T.C., H.-C.H.)
^bRadiology (H.-Y.C., P.-P.T.), China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
^cDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, School of Medicine (Y.-J.C., H.-C.H.), China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Please address correspondence to Yen-Jen Chen, MD, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, China Medical University Hospital, No 2, Yuh-Der Rd, Taichung 404, Taiwan; e-mail: yenjenc.tw@yahoo.com.tw

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

Many authors have reported the increase in vertebral body height after vertebroplasty. However, McKiernan et al demonstrated dynamic mobility in patients who underwent vertebroplasty and concluded that any article that claims vertebral height restoration must control for the dynamic mobility of fractured vertebrae. The purpose of this study was to compare prevertebroplasty (supine cross-table with a bolster beneath) with postvertebroplasty vertebral body height to find out whether vertebroplasty itself really increases the vertebral height.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

From July 2005 to July 2010, 102 consecutive patients with 132 VCFs underwent vertebroplasty at our institution. The indications for vertebroplasty were severe pain that was not responsive to medical treatment, and MR imaging−confirmed edematous lesions. Prevertebroplasty (supine cross-table with bolster beneath) lateral radiographs were compared with postvertebroplasty radiographs to evaluate the height change in vertebroplasty. Kyphotic angle and anterior vertebral body height were measured.

RESULTS:

The patients ranged in age from 62 to 90 years. There were 16 men and 86 women. The difference in the kyphotic angle between supine cross-table with bolster and postvertebroplasty was −0.49 ± 3.59° (range, −9°–16°), which was not statistically significant (P = 0.124). The difference in the anterior vertebral body height between supine cross-table with bolster and postvertebroplasty was 0.84 ± 3.01 mm (range, −7.91–8.81 mm), which was statistically significant (P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS:

The restoration of vertebral body height in vertebroplasty seems to be mostly due to the dynamic mobility of fractured vertebrae; vertebroplasty itself does not contribute much to the restoration of vertebral height.

SPINE

Kyphoplasty and Vertebroplasty Produce the Same Degree of Height Restoration

A. Hiwatashia,b, P.-L.A. Westessona, T. Yoshiurab, T. Noguchib, O. Togaob, K. Yamashitab, H. Kamanob and H. Hondab – Author Affiliations
^aDivision of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Imaging Sciences, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
^bDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
Please address correspondence to Akio Hiwatashi, MD, Department of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan; e-mail: hiwatasi@radiol.med.kyushu-u.ac.jp

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

There are few comparative studies regarding morphologic changes after kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare restoration of vertebral body height and wedge angle and cement leakage with kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty in osteoporotic compression fractures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Forty patients (57 vertebrae) were treated with kyphoplasty, and 66 patients (124 vertebrae) were treated with vertebroplasty. Cement leakage into the disk space and paravertebral soft tissues or veins was analyzed on immediate postoperative CT scans. The height and wedge angle were measured before and after treatment and analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U test and χ² test.

RESULTS:

Kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty both improved vertebral body height and the wedge angles (P < .05). However, these differences were not statistically significant when the 2 techniques were compared (P > .05). There were 18% of the kyphoplasty group and 49% of the vertebroplasty group that showed cement leakage into the paravertebral soft tissues or veins (P < .01). Cement leakage into the disk space occurred in 12% of the kyphoplasty group and in 25% of the vertebroplasty group (P < .01). However, no complications related to cement leakage were noted.

CONCLUSIONS:

Both kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty achieved the same degree of height restoration and improvement of the wedge angle. Kyphoplasty resulted in less cement leakage into the disk space and paravertebral soft tissues or veins than vertebroplasty.

Kyphoplasty versus Vertebroplasty to Increase Vertebral Body Height: A Cadaveric Study

Akio Hiwatashi, MD, Ravinder Sidhu, MD, Ryan K. Lee, MD, Ramon R. deGuzman, MD, Diane T. Piekut, PhD and Per-Lennart A. Westesson, MD, PhD, DDS
¹From the Departments of Radiology (A.H., R.S., R.K.L., R.R.d., P.L.A.W.) and Neurobiology and Anatomy (D.T.P.), University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 648, Rochester, NY 14642-8648. Received September 26, 2004; revision requested December 2; revision received December 21; accepted January 21, 2005.
Address correspondence to A.H. (e-mail: Akio_Hiwatashi@urmc.rochester.edu).

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To prospectively compare the vertebral height restoration achieved with kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty in fresh cadavers by using multi–detector row computed tomography (CT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Institutional review board approval was not required because the donors had registered in and consented to an anatomic gift program prior to their death. Thirty-seven vertebrae were harvested from four donated cadavers of elderly female individuals (mean age, 82 years; age range at death, 73–87 years). The vertebrae were dissected free of the surrounding muscles and imaged with multi–detector row CT. Compression fractures were induced, and the vertebrae were again imaged. The vertebrae were randomized to be treated with kyphoplasty (n = 19) or vertebroplasty (n = 18) and were then imaged at multi–detector row CT. The anterior, central, and posterior vertebral body heights and wedge angles were measured in the midsagittal plane of the reformatted images. The amount of cement injected was determined by weighing the vertebrae before and after treatment. The statistical significance of changes in vertebral body height, wedge angle, and weight with the two treatment techniques was evaluated with the independent t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS:

The increase in vertebral height was greater with kyphoplasty than with vertebroplasty (5.1 mm vs 2.3 mm, respectively; P < .05). The original vertebral height was restored in 93% of vertebrae with kyphoplasty and in 82% with vertebroplasty (P < .05). There was a greater decrease in wedge angle with kyphoplasty than with vertebroplasty (3.1° vs 1.6°, respectively); however, this difference was not significant (P > .05). There was no significant difference in the amount of cement injected with kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty (P > .05).

CONCLUSION:

Kyphoplasty increased vertebral body height more than vertebroplasty in this model of acutely created fractures in fresh cadaver specimens.

SPINE

Kyphosis Correction and Height Restoration Effects of Percutaneous Vertebroplasty

Michael Mu Huo Tenga, Chao-Jung Weia, Liang-Chen Weia, Chao-Bao Luoa, Jiing-Feng Lirnga, Feng-Chi Changa, Chien-Lin Liub and Cheng-Yen Changa – Author Affiliations
^aDepartment of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital and National Yang-Ming University, Taiwan
^bDepartment of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital and National Yang-Ming University, Taiwan
Address reprint requests to Dr Michael Mu Huo Teng, Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, 201, Sec 2, Shih-Pai Road, Peitou District, Taipei 11217, Taiwan

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

Percutaneous vertebroplasty is known for its pain-relieving effect. Our purpose was to evaluate its effect on the kyphosis angle, wedge angle, and height of the fractured vertebral body.

METHODS:

We reviewed digital radiographs of 73 vertebral bodies in 53 patients before and after vertebroplasty. We measured the spinal kyphosis angle and the wedge angle of the fractured vertebral body. Ratios of the height of the anterior border, center, and posterior borders of the collapsed vertebra to the height at the posterior border of an adjacent normal vertebral body were measured. Gain from vertebroplasty and the restoration percentage (gain divided by loss) were calculated for each parameter.

RESULTS:

The kyphosis angle, wedge angle, anterior height, center height, and posterior height significantly improved after vertebroplasty. The mean reduction in the kyphosis angle was 4.3°, and the wedge-angle reduction was 7.4°. The mean wedge-angle reduction in fractured vertebral bodies containing gas was 10.2°. Restoration percentages for the kyphosis angle and wedge angle were 19% and 44%, respectively. Gain in the height of the fractured vertebral bodies was 16.7% for the anterior border, 14% for the center, and 7% for the posterior border. Restoration percentages for the height of the vertebral body were 29% for the anterior border and 27% for the center.

CONCLUSION:

Vertebroplasty increases the height of the fractured vertebra and reduces the wedge and kyphosis angles. These effects are most remarkable in fractured vertebra containing gas.

Increase Height By Using Balloon Kyphoplasty

It seems that there are now even more ways and possibilities to increase height, and this way is through surgical implantations into the vertebrate bones which has been traditionally been used to heal vertebrate and disk ruptures which cause chronic back pain. So far this type of surgery is only done for people who are old and need the surgery for medical reasons to elevate pain. The amount of extra height they seem to get is what would be called lost height from age degeneration and it is only about a few millimeters.

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, January 2003 / Vol. 98 / No. 1 / Pages 36-42

CLINICAL ARTICLES

Balloon kyphoplasty: one-year outcomes in vertebral body height restoration, chronic pain, and activity levels

Jon T. Ledlie, M.D., and Mark Renfro, M.D.Tyler Neurosurgical Associates, Tyler, Texas

Abbreviations used in this paper: AP = anteroposterior; VAS = Visual Analog Scale; VB = vertebral body; VCF = vertebral compression fracture.

Address reprint requests to: Jon T. Ledlie, M.D., Tyler Neurosurgical Associates, P.A., 700 Olympic Plaza, Suite 850, Tyler, TX 75701. email: jledlie@tylerneuro.com.

Abstract

Object. The authors assessed the safety of balloon kyphoplasty in the reduction and repair of osteopenic vertebral compression fractures and report functional outcomes (back pain and activity levels) in the first 96 patients (with 133 fractures) at their institution. Additionally they provide radiographic outcomes in the first 26 patients (41 fractures) treated and followed for 1 year.

Methods. The authors conducted a retrospective chart review of functional outcomes and evaluated radiographs obtained at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively.

Conclusions. Balloon kyphoplasty safely increases vertebral body height, decreases chronic back pain, and quickly returns geriatric patients to higher activity levels, leading to increased independence and quality of life.

Effects of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on Human Articular Chondrocyte Proliferation

Me: The study that was done and written down below seem to suggest that the PEMF technology seem to be able to work only on chondrocyte cultures that are of low density for a long time, not high density which is shorter. This suggest that the proliferation of chondrocytes and the ability of using some form of external stimuli to make it divide and multiply more is more dependent on the availability of growth factors and the environmental constrictions. The implications means that if we ever plan to use electrical and ultrasonic technology to increase chondrocytes it would be a good idea to first add the needed extra growth factors, whatever they may be, into the extracellular cartilage matrix before we start using the PEMF and/or LIPUS devices.

Effects of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on Human Articular Chondrocyte Proliferation

2001, Vol. 42, No. 4 , Pages 269-279

Monica De Mattei¹, Angelo Caruso¹^†, Furio Pezzetti¹, Agnese Pellati¹, Giordano Stabellini³, Vincenzo Sollazzo² and Gian Carlo Traina²

¹Dipartimento di Morfologia ed Embriologia, Università Statute, 44100, Ferrara, Italy

²Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche e Terapie Avanzate, Università di Ferrara, 44100, Ferrara, Italy

³Istituto di Anatomic Umana Normale, Università Statute, 20133, Milano, Italy

^†Correspondence: Angelo Caruso, Dipartimento di Morfologia ed Embriologia, University di Ferrara, via Fossato di Mortara 64, 44100, Ferrara, Italy+39+532-29153939-0532-291533 g4f@dns.unife.it

Low-energy, low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) can induce cell proliferation in several cell culture models. In this work we analysed the proliferative response of human articular chondrocytes, cultured in medium containing 10% FBS, following prolonged exposure to PEMFs (75 Hz, 2.3 mT), currently used in the treatment of some orthopaedic pathologies. In particular, we investigated the dependence of the proliferative effects on the cell density, the availability of growth factors and the exposure lengths. We observed that PEMFs can induce cell proliferation of low density chondrocyte cultures for a long time (6 days), when fresh serum is added again in the culture medium. In the same conditions, in high density cultures, the PEMF-induced increase in cell proliferation was observed only in the first three days of exposure. The data presented in this study show that the availability of growth factors and the environmental constrictions strongly condition the cellular proliferative response to PEMFs.

The effects of pulsed low-intensity ultrasound on chondrocyte viability, proliferation, gene expression and matrix production

Me: This shows one of the studies done testing the possibility of using the LIPUS technology to increase the chondrocyte proliferation. In this study though it is called PLIUS, not LIPUS as we have called it but they are the same thing. Again I note that this study is critical in showing whether using LIPUS is even worth looking deeper into. From only being able to get to the abstract, my opinion on the technology is mixed. PLIUS was shown to inhibit the expression of type X collagen. It seems that using the lower level of PLIUS intensity of 2 mW/cm^2 seem to inhibit chondrocyte hypertrophy which is something that we desire since chondrocyte hypertrophy means that they are no longer in the zone to proliferate which is something we don’t want. We want to hold off on any type of Collagen Type X production as much as possible to increase the number of chondrocytes available to be in the hypertrophy zone to increase in size.

Original contribution

The effects of pulsed low-intensity ultrasound on chondrocyteviability, proliferation, gene expression and matrix production

Zi-Jun Zhang^*, James Huckle^†, Clair A Francomano^*, Richard G.S Spencer^*^,

^* National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD, USA
^† Smith and Nephew Group Research Centre, York Science Park, Heslington, York, UK

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2003.08.011, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

Permissions & Reprints

Purchase $31.50

Abstract

This study was designed to examine the effects of pulsed low-intensity ultrasound (PLIUS) on chondrocyteviability, proliferation, matrix production and gene expression. Chondrocytes were isolated from the distal part of the sternum of 16-day-old chick embryos and cultured in alginate beads. PLIUS at 2 mW/cm² (group PLIUS₂) and 30 mW/cm² (group PLIUS₃₀) was applied to chondrocytes for a single 20-min treatment. A control group was treated without PLIUS. The viability of chondrocytes was not affected by exposure to PLIUS. PLIUS influenced chondrocyte proliferation in an intensity-dependent manner. By day 7 after application of PLIUS, the gene expression and synthesis of aggrecan was the same as in the controls. At this same time point, the expression and synthesis of type II collagen was not different between the controls and PLIUS₃₀, but was increased in PLIUS₂. PLIUS was shown to inhibit the expression of type X collagen. This inhibition of chondrocyte hypertrophy may prove to be significant in the management of cartilage degeneration. (E-mail: spencer@helix.nih.gov)

Dietary Lactose Improves Endochondral Growth and Bone Development And Mineralization

Me: It would seem that from just reading this neat little abstract that the common food product of milk may actually be causing kids to grow taller from not just increased Vitamin D and Calcium intake and density. It seems that the Lactose sugar themselves also help with endochondral growth. I am even willing to make the daring hypothesis that it could be possible that lactose could be the real ingredient in milk that causes kids to grow and maybe it is not from the Vitamin D and Calcium, since there have been many studies done that refuted and confirmed the age old thinking that Milk will increase a kids growing rate and height from the Calcium and Vitamin D intake. However, it is important to know that there is more in milk that can cause growth and height increase than what was previously believed to be in it.

J Nutr. 1988 Jan;118(1):72-7.

Dietary lactose improves endochondral growth and bone development and mineralization in rats fed a vitamin D-deficient diet.

Miller SC, Miller MA, Omura TH.

Source

Division of Radiobiology, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City 84112.

Abstract

Lactose promotes the intestinal absorption of calcium independent of the vitamin D endocrine system. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of lactose supplementation on endochondral bone growth, bone development and mineralization in weanling rats fed a vitamin D-deficient diet. Rat pups were weaned from vitamin D-deficient dams and fed a vitamin D-deficient diet containing sucrose as the primary carbohydrate source or a similar diet but containing 20% lactose. After 4 wk, body weights, serum calcium levels and endochondral bone elongation rates in the lactose-fed animals were higher than in rats fed the sucrose diet. In addition, bone weights, bone calcium content, percent bone ash of bone dry weight, percent metaphyseal osseous tissues and bone osteoid content in the lactose-fed rats were different from those in the rats fed the sucrose diet. In all cases the changes in osseous tissues that were observed in the animals fed the lactose-supplemented diet were toward normal values as observed in age-matched animals fed a vitamin D-replete diet. The improvements in bone growth and development due to lactose supplementation occurred independent of the vitamin D endocrine system and are likely the result of improved calcium absorption in the intestine.

PMID: 3335941 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

How Lateral Synovial Joint Loading Works To Increase Height From Non-Distraction: FAQs and Concerns Answered (Guest Post)

Me: I have been having this issue for the longest time with any method or technique that does not involve at least comes kind of distraction in the bones we want to stretch and lengthening because I have been having the hardest time wrapping my head around how such methods could possibly work. I have talked to my coworker about this and Tyler but the answer was always “chondrogenesis” which I couldn’t understand. Finally I decided to send Tyler an email so he can clarify what that means. Also, I wanted to ask him about this specific issue when applied to his method, the LSJL, and why it works.

Questions

Inbox…

Natural Height Growth, naturalheightgrowth@gmail.com, to Tyler, Sep 30 (2 days ago)

My coworker and i are having a discussion on a main point. how is lsjl able to break apart and stretch out the hard inorganic calcium phosphate bone matrix of the cortical bone even if chondrocytes are being created at such a high level. it should not do anything since you are pushing against something that is harder than concrete.

Tyler Davis to me, Oct 1 (1 day ago)

LSJL doesn’t try to push apart the bones. LSJL tries to induce chondrogenesis in the epiphysis of the bone. The chondroinductive properties of LSJL have been validated by gene expression results and histology diagrams. The ability for hydrostatic pressure, fluid flow, and LIPUS to induce chondrogenesis of adult human MSC’s has also been validated in vivo. LSJL induces similar stimuli as HP, FF, and LIPUS

Natural Height Growth naturalheightgrowth@gmail.com, to Tyler, 2:12 AM (19 hours ago)

i still don’t get how creating more cartilage cells in the epiphysis will lead to longitudinal growth. even if this type of external stimuli is inducing the right type of genes to produce and release the right type of protein, how can they get around the hard bone? the epiphysis may not be as hard as the diaphysis but it is still very strong.

People keep telling me that the answer is in the chondrogenesis like her but I can’t figure it out. Here is my thinking…

1. So you produce a lot of chondrocytes from MSC differentiation in the cancellous external cavity in the epiphysis ends….

2. The loading (assume it is lsjl method) causes certain genes in the MSC and other HSC in the bone marrow to up regulate and release growth hormones and increase rate of changing into the right type of

3. Some BMPs, FGF, and maybe some other growth factors which are proteins and hormones increases in formation and output or gets turned on

How does the epiphysis increase in length? I realize now that my focus or at least what is easier for me to understand is the orthopedics part, less of the endocrine stuff, and least of all the genetics stuff. So I am focusing on the orthopedics right now.

You say that you are trying to induce the generation and proliferation of chondrocytes in the inner cavity of the epiphysis. How does the chondrocytes then make the overall bone longer? The epiphysis still has a very hard surface so the cell should not be able to pass through the outer bone but then it has the peristeum to deal with. If you remember, the growth plate passes completely through the long bone for it to separate the two bone parts further from each other.

The only explanation I can think of is that you are assuming that the constant rate of osteoblast and osteoclast formation and resorption on the outside and inside might get the inner produced chondrocytes to be pushed out of the inner cavity and once it reaches close to the surface, it causes a bone lengthening process similar tot eh growth plate. However, growth plates have chondrocytes stacked neatly on top of each other. Please explain the process because I am stuck over and over again. the science from a engineering and physics point of view makes no sense.

this is the same kind of problem i am having with fully understanding the ilizarov method. I am still confused whether the fracture is made completely through the bone, thus opening up to the bone marrow cavity or is it just the outer dense bone that is cracked open.

maybe i am being really stupid here so call me “billy bob” but this one part makes no sense.

Tyler David to me, 2:43 AM (19 hours ago)

The principal is that cartilage is capable of growth from within whereas bone is not. Growth plates have to be capable of pushing incredible amounts of weight like an elephant for example. Bone can only grow on the outside whereas cartilage is capable of interestitial growth. Therefore the growth plate doesn’t have to be completely from one end to the bone to the other. The periosteum is capable of lengthening as well.

If you look at this picture of a finger fracture: http://www.heightquest.com/2010/02/empirical-evidence-of-possibility-of.html. You can see that my finger increased in length(diagonally) without the whole finger being broken.

And LSJL increases matrix degradation via MMP3, MMP2, and MMP14. Thus addressing the cortical bone problem.

Growth plate chondrocytes are often not stacked neatly on top of each other. Also the epiphysis is porous with trabecular bone. It has a lot of empty spaces filled with marrow. Yellow/Red doesn’t matter because adiposal stem cells are capable of chondrogenic differentiation too.

Cartilagenous growth plates are capable of interstitial growth. Growth plates always work against force as it is trapped between two bone ends. Thus, growth plates should be able to generate growth from within a bone. One issue is that static compression decreases growth plates and as you say bones are heavy. So after inducing chondrogenesis with say LSJL it may be best to use microgravity afterwards say inversion or just giving your legs a break for an hour. Inversion is hard to do for long periods of time though.

In summary: Growth plates can beat forces by definition as they are always trapped between a rock and a hard place(epiphysis and diaphysis). The sides of the bone are just another force.

Feel free to include this conversation as a “guest post” just include the backlink.

————————-

Natural Height Growth, naturalheightgrowth@gmail.com, to Tyler, 1:30 PM (8 hours ago)

Okay. Now I am finally starting to reach some kind of understanding on what you mean. However, there is still two small points that I haven’t figured out yet.

1. So you increase the chondrocytes. The chondrocytes release the collagen type ii and proteoglycan which is supposed to form a cartilage matrix.

Am i supposed to assume that cartilage is being formed in the epiphysis cavity from doing these loadings?

If you say yes, then the problem is that I have never heard of an incidence where cartilage is actually being formed inside the marrow cavity.

I have always thought that it requires chondrocytes and cartilage matrix to push apart bone, not just chondrocytes. don’t you need cartilage matrix to push the bones.?

in principle and theory, your idea does make sense.

From a physics point of view, if you can get the chondrocytes to multiply, and multiply some more , they will push. The forces produced in the epiphysis will defintiely increase the hydrostatic pressure.

However the force/area which is pressure on the surface area of the saivty will be divided and distributed across the entire thing.

We both know that long bones have high compressive force and tensile strength so force exerted on the axis directions will have to be large. You are pressing laterally from the inside and they say the pressure needed at least from the outside inwards direction is only 50 MPa.

I am visualizing a picture of the femur in my mind as a cylinder with two spheres on the end, like a dumbbell shape. the cortical bone will be strong so the forces there won’t do much. Nature wants to take the path of least resistance so the hydrostatic pressure and chondrocytes will try to put a stretch on the area which is the weakest, which should than be in the epiphysis, but in the lateral direction.

With my logic, this means that LSJL should make the epiphysis ends wide, but only a little bit longer in on the axis which we want, which is longitudinally. Your theory makes sense but the affects will be so small like an exact few millimeters in long bone lengthening.

2. The other main concern which I see is that the original growth plates were not encapsulated like the new chondrocytes. I agree that the original growth plates did have a lot of pressure exerted on them. growth plates are only a few millimeters and they have to support and hold up a 200 lb person so there is a lot of force/ sqr inch. they are pushing up and down. but the sides are not clamped shut.

I will say this again, the chondrocytes produced are pushing in a closed system which is surrounding by upwards of 1 cm thick of bone that is concrete in strength. and the way the pressure will force upon the inner ways will be distributed in a way that goes towards the weaker epiphysis sides.

I stated before that the tensile strength of long bone is 150 MPa. this means the chondrocytes needed to push up to at least 70% of this amount to cause some deformation. They also have to push in the right direction, along the axis. they are trapped in 1 cm thick physically mature adult femur bones.

If I can figure out or calculate how much force/area the original growth plates had to deal with, and it comes out to be anything close to 50-100 MPa then LSJL will definitely work to increase long bones longitudinally. if the values are not close, then I would guess most of the bone changes would be towards increased epiphysis thickness, and very little for real lengthening. You will get some bone lengthening but little.

I just need to do more research to see what the biomechanical values are of the bones and growth plates. can you explain away my two main concerns?

Tyler Davis to me, 2:01 AM (11 hours ago)

Unfortunately there haven’t been a lot of studies on forces required to lengthen bone or I haven’t come across them. There’s a study that I mention here http://www.heightquest.com/2011/05/why-does-hydrostatic-pressure-induce.html about mitotic cell rounding and

The idea is that differentiating chondrocytes will automatically secrete matrix.

Unfortunately, I can’t explain away your concerns now. Ideally we’d need to the growth plates in action live to see what forces they generate.

I have done research myself on the biomechanical forces of the bone and growth plates and couldn’t find very much.

So unfortunately I can’t explain away your concerns at this time.

Natural Height Growth, naturalheightgrowth@gmail.com, to Tyler, Oct 3 (2 days ago)

Okay. I’ll take this conversation and turn it into another post with the back link. It won’t be posted until I get through the protein pathway and endocrinology posts which could take up to 2 weeks. Im just getting around to doing all the reading and research.