Dear Sir,

We read the above-mentioned publication with interest. The author had chosen a good topic as comparative study in this age group for acetabular fractures is rarely published nowadays. However, there are certain limitations that need to be clarified.

The test of normality for numerical variables was not mentioned in the study because length of stay which has been analysed in this study has a classical skewed distribution rather than a normal distribution [1]. The author has used the Student’s t test which has a pre-requisite that the variable must be normally distributed. If the outcome variable is not normally distributed, a nonparametric test such as Mann–Whitney U test or a transformation of the outcome variable should have been done [2].

The follow-up period as mentioned by the author ranges from 1 month to 60 months with the mean of 14 months, indicating that there were patients who had follow-up period of just 1 month following treatment and were still part of study. These patients should have been excluded, and if not, there should have been a mention of number of such patients who were part of study and if any such patients required conversion to THA. May be these patients with such a short follow-up might have required THA within 1 year if minimum follow-up period would have been at least 1 year.

Exclusion criteria would have been widened to exclude the three periprosthetic fractures and four pathological fractures which were part of study, along with the previously mentioned short follow-up period patients.

Thank you