Sir,
This article has been read with great interest. While commending the authors' effort in assessing this topic which is currently being debated, I
would like to highlight a few points which could have affected the outcome
of this study.
1. Dividing the patients into two groups based on the time of arrival
in the accident and emergency department will not give the correct
interval between the injury and surgery. This is particularly important in
district general hospitals like ours, where similar cases are often brought
to the accident and emergency department from the periphery of the catchment area
with an existing time delay following the injury. The authors have made an attempt to look into the ambulance
charts but more reliable information about the time of injury could have
been obtained from the family/carers, especially when a severe injury to
the elbow has occurred.
2. The authors do not state clearly if the time of presentation and
time of surgery were associated with a higher rate of open reduction.
There could be more chance of open reduction being performed if the cases were
done during normal working hours with a fully-equipped theatre and back-up facilities.
3. The authors do not highlight if there was a difference in the rate
of open reduction between the treating teams. This series was operated on, or
supervised by different consultants, and personal preferences and
experiences could have affected the rate of open reduction.
1. Mangwani J, Nadarajah R, Paterson JMH.
Supracondylar humeral fractures in children - ten years' experience in a
teaching hospital.
J Bone and Joint Surg [Br] 2006;88-B:362-5.
2. Sibinski M, Sharma H, Bennet GC.
Early versus delayed treatment of extension type-3 supracondylar fractures
of the humerus in children. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2006;88-B:380-1.