I don't understand why is unilateral approach having so less attention on this forum.
First of all, it takes just a little fitness to be fully functional without puting any weight on one leg. Many of us have already "experienced it" when having our legs broken.
You can drive a car, walk around with crutches, tidy up the house - you basically don't need any help from the others to continue your everyday life. It may be not convenient, but it allows you to stay active, both socially and professionally. You remain physically active, you stand up and move regurarily, which must be way healthier. You can get used to it and keep living like this virtually forever.
Meanwhile, bilateral procedure basically stops your entire life for a few months.
I skip the argument of embolism, because it has been discussed enough. I will only add the common sense, that it is easier and faster to heal one broken place at a time.
I beg somebody smart to prove me wrong, because I can't get it why is unilateral not the default approach worldwide (why are there doctors who do only bilateral, but not the opposite - the ones who do only unilateral).