Comparison of the use of the humerus intramedullary nail and dynamic compression plate for the management of diaphyseal fractures of the humerus: reply to Subasi and Cebesoy

I would like to thank Drs. Subasi and Cebesoy for their interest in our article [1]. Here are my answers to the questions raised by them:

• 1. We used open reduction and internal fixation for all fractures as all these fractures in group A and group B were not fresh injuries (mean duration of injury for group A: 45 days, mean duration of injury for group B: 38 days). This was due to the fact that initial conservative treatment was attempted in all these patients (except for those with open fractures). This is exactly the reason for the need to use autograft in some of these patients in each of the groups.

• 2. The patients were randomised prior to the operation and the decision was taken intraoperatively whether the patient required bone grafting or not.

• 3. One patient in group A developed deep-seated infection and subsequent non-union. This was managed by removal of the nail followed by reinsertion and bone grafting. The fracture eventually healed.

• 4. There were two patients with non-union in each of the groups.

• 5. McCormack et al. is actually reference no. 11.

I would like to thank the correspondents again for showing interest in our article. We would also like to apologise for any potentially avoidable minor editing mistakes.