To The Editor:
I congratulate the authors on an innovative and informative study.
The results are also encouraging. However, I would like to offer a correction on their use of certain terminology.
The authors state, “all patients but
two had achieved a functional arc of motion of 100˚.” The concept
of the “functional arc of motion” is well understood and accepted in the
field of elbow surgery since its original definition by Morrey, Askew, An,
and Chao (1). Morrey, et al., defined the functional arc of motion as a
100˚ arc from 30 to 130˚. Note that it is not simply a
100˚ arc. A patient who has motion from 0 to 100˚ does not have
a functional arc of motion, not does a patient who moves from 50 to
150˚.
In the supplementary material published in the online version of the article,
the data for the individual patients reveal that only 3 of the 14
patients achieved a true functional arc of motion; in other words, 11 did
not. In all 11 patients, this was due to a lack of sufficent flexion and in two of the
patients, there was also inadequate extension.
While the contribution of their work is important, it is equally
important to ensure that such misunderstanding or miscommunication not
occur.
The author(s) of this letter to the editor did not receive payment or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the author(s) are affiliated or associated.
References:
1) Morrey BF; Askew LJ; An K-N; and Chao EY. A biomechanical study of
normal elbow motion. J Bone Joint Surg. 1981;63-A872-877.
Letters to the Editor: ![[Read Letter to the Editor]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
