Skip to main content

Learn article

PRECICE vs. LON: How the Two Most Common Limb Lengthening Methods Compare

A current comparison of fully internal titanium PRECICE IMLL and lengthening over a nail (LON), including fixation, daily care, loading, operations, infection, evidence limits, and recalls.

Stage: planningCategory: methodsUpdated 2026-07-15

Showing the English original.

In brief

What should readers understand about PRECICE vs. LON: How the Two Most Common Limb Lengthening Methods Compare?

A structured, source-backed comparison of the PRECICE magnetic intramedullary nail and the Lengthening Over Nail (LON) method — covering how each works, what surgery involves, how the distraction process differs, and what recovery typically looks like.

Limits: This page is educational context only and is not medical advice.

Evidence
Peer-reviewed evidence
Source set
Peer-reviewed sources
Updated
References
6 listed

Editorial responsibility: Limb Lengthening Library editorial team. Independent medical review is not claimed unless a named reviewer is listed. How sources are reviewed.

Short Answer

Titanium IMLL is a fully internal magnetic lengthening nail. LON combines an with an during distraction, then locks the nail and removes the frame for . Neither is universally superior; anatomy, indication, deformity, device fit, load needs, infection exposure, operations, rehabilitation, cost, and provider experience all matter. [1]

Qualitative trade-offs are more portable than prices or complication percentages from unlike cohorts.

PRECICE IMLL

The nail is inserted in the and locked proximally and distally at the initial operation. An external controller actuates distraction. There are no external pin sites, but the method still has incision, nerve, joint, , alignment, infection, implant, load, and reoperation risks.

LON

The frame supplies distraction while the nail is already present. At the transition after distraction, the nail is locked and the frame removed so the nail supports . Frame duration is shorter than classic in comparative literature, but pin sites overlap in time with an implant and create a route for deep infection. [1][2]

Daily Experience

  • : controller positioning and prescribed sessions, load restriction, assistive devices, serial imaging, therapy, and incision monitoring.
  • LON: frame adjustments, pin-site and frame care, clothing and sleep adaptations, prescribed loading, serial imaging, and therapy.

Third-party video context

This provider-produced animation is useful for visualizing the mechanics of a fully internal magnetic nail and LON. Its statements about method superiority, pain, loading, recovery, infection, and device removal reflect one clinic's perspective and may conflict with current device instructions or regulatory status. Use the written comparison, current FDA information, and the exact device instructions, not the video, as the decision reference.

Third-party visual comparison: PRECICE and LON mechanics (Dr. Donghoon Lee, 2025)
External video

Load the YouTube player to watch this video.

The player is hosted by YouTube. Open on YouTube if the embed does not load.

Operations and Removal

does not require routine distal locking at the end of distraction because both ends are locked initially. LON generally includes a frame-removal and nail-locking transition. Both methods can require unplanned procedures, and internal nails later require device-specific removal planning. FDA instructions for titanium IMLL state removal after one year. [3]

Loading Cannot Be Compared With One Number

Permitted load depends on the exact nail or frame, diameter, bone, number of operated limbs, phase, , alignment, and surgeon. LON may permit different loading because the frame and nail share stability, but earlier or fuller loading is not universal. Use the written plan for the exact construct.

Infection Trade-Off

A fully internal nail avoids but not all surgical or implant infection. LON adds pin sites near an implant. A randomized 31-limb study reported shorter frame time and fewer overall events with LON than conventional Ilizarov treatment, while 3 of 15 LON limbs developed deep infection. The benefit and harm must be presented together. [4]

Direct Comparison Evidence Is Limited

Comparative studies differ by indication, bone, era, device, surgeon, and outcome definitions. A femoral cohort favoring a magnetic nail over LON does not prove the same result for every tibial or cosmetic patient. Provider-specific current outcomes remain important. [5]

Current U.S. Device Status

The FDA states that stainless-steel devices including remain recalled and should not be implanted. A separate Class II recall covers specified catalog and lot combinations and remained open when the FDA record was updated on July 14, 2026. Do not treat as available. For , verify the exact UDI or lot and current instructions rather than assuming that either every unit is recalled or every unit is available for high loading. [3][6]

Cost Depends on the Full Pathway

Implant price alone does not compare total cost. Include facility, frame, controller, operations, pin care, therapy, imaging, housing, lost work, removal, and complications. Published cost studies reflect one system and time and do not establish a current global price.

Ask the Same Questions for Both Methods

  • Exact device or construct, fit, load restriction, current regulatory status, and planned operations.
  • Provider outcomes for the same segment, indication, and method with clear denominators.
  • Infection, joint, nerve, alignment, , implant, and revision protocols.
  • Local stay, remote-care limits, therapy, caregiver, emergency, and total-cost plan.

Informational only. Not medical advice.