Seems that undergoing limb lengthening on any specific segment carries more risk; would it be more logical to opt for sequential (Option 3 Paley) procedures aiming for 9cm in total across the tibia (4cm) and the femur (5cm) rather than a complete 8cm on the femur?
Can it be argued that proceeding with a quadrilateral approach makes sense, disregarding expenses but focusing on risk and recovery concerns?
It is difficult to determine. Personally, I prefer to undergo fewer surgeries and have them all done at once, but this preference may vary for other individuals.
