Why legs with no fibulas are amputated?

Question:

I read that Oscar Pistorius was born without having fibulas in his legs and that is why they were amputated. My query is why? So what if you don’t have bones in your legs?

Answer:

Answer by Justin
If you dont have bones then you have flapping sacks of skin. He would nevertheless have a fibula but that tiny bone can not assistance the weight of a physique.
It is a very excellent issue that he was amputated. He was in a position to get prosthetic legs and was able to stroll. Heck not only can he walk he is an Olympic runner.

Amputations are an intense and need to only be done if they benefit the particular person. Pistorius clearly benefitted from the amputations

Much more answers below:
Watch this video:

Search terms:

why were oscar pistorius legs amputated, why were pistorius legs amputated, why was oscar pistorius legs amputated, oscar pistorius why were his legs amputated, pistorius legs amputated why, william schallert amputation, why dis william shallert have his legs amputated, William Schallert Legs Amputated, oscar pistorius why legs amputated, Why Was Pistorius Legs Amputated, oscar pistorius reason for amputation, fibulas in his legs, why did pistorius have his legs amputated, fibulas, pistorius amputation, pistorius amoutation reason, born without fibulas, why were pistoroousnlegs amputated, why were oscar pistorias\s legs amputated?, why were odcsr pistoriis legs smpitatrd, william schallert amputee reason, why was oscar pistorius\s legs amputated?, why were Oscar Pistorius legs amputated?, william schallert amputee,

Comments (1)

  • Ray

    The fibula is a key bone in not only providing structural support to the leg but also to the foot. Many of the muscles that control foot flexion and extension owe their origins to the fibula. I speculate that if you are born without a fibula, some of these muscles will not develop and you would have absolutely no control of the foot. I read an article about Pistorius that said his foot curled up onto itself, this would make sense because you would loose the counterbalancing pull of muscles in the foot if you were to be missing the the muscles that originate on the fibula. The reason they amputated the leg is probably because it is too difficult/ impossible to not only put in a prosthetic fibula but also fashion all the necessary musculature. The congenital absence of any bone in the leg, whether it be femur, fibula, or tibia would all have innumerable consequences and would surely require amputation. As for the congenital absence of a bone in the foot, depending on which bone, this could possibly be solved with a prosthetic bone or by other surgical means.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

© 2012 giessy.com

Scroll to top