We read with interest "A Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing the
Limited Contact Dynamic Compression Plate with the Point Contact Fixator for
(2003;85:2343-8), by Leung and
Chow, a well-executed study with good numbers and adequate follow-up.It was not clear to us why the decision was made to remove the devices
(twenty-two PC-Fix devices and twenty-nine LC-DCP devices, totaling 40.8% of
the devices). It is very unlikely that there was a definite clinical
indication for removing the implants. It is well established in the literature
that removing the implants not only subjects the patients to an unnecessary
second surgery but also exposes them to a substantial risk of complications,
including infection and nerve injury. If looking at the refracture rate was
the only reason for removing the devices, we believe that it was unnecessary.
A valid and reliable comparison between the two groups could have been
achieved by assessment of bone healing, patient function, and complications
with radiographs and clinical examination alone.