Amputation vs leg lengthening

Am starting to question the point of lengthening the leg.

As I gather - if we chose amputation - it would be a fairly straight forward procedure,
and then the prothesis - slight chance of infection - but generally an emotional struggle more than a physical one. Valgus is gone. Tarsal coalition is gone.

If we continue with leg-lengthening - we lengthen thigh bone now 3.5cm. Then we have to wait a year for the lower leg to straighten - or will look at correcting the valgus first. We also have to correct the tarsal. Then we lengthen the lower leg 10cm. We can only realistically find 5cm. So following this we have to shorten the good leg 4cm. We can have other complications during the procedure, and from what I have read, with such a length to find - often the patient ends up with an amputation. So why go through all of this to have to amputate in the end anyway?

So what is the answer?