Skip to main content
Log in

A Review on the Article: Role of Common Biochemical Markers for the Assessment of Fracture Union

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Criterion for patient selection and demographic comparison between the two groups, the numbers in individual groups (normal union or defective union) how the observers were blinded for the samples and control group measurements in the graphs were not mentioned. No data on actual measurement levels is given. No where it is mentioned like it is an average of all normal union or defective union in tables or diagrams. The treatment methodology maybe still focused including either conservative or surgical treatment since a displaced fracture cannot be compared with an osteotomy. The cases shall be followed up for a longer period. Some suggestions on how to blind the observers is given. In the one year period there was neither mention of the failure of treatment or complications of any of neither these 36 cases nor any drop out for follow-ups. There was also no mention of any case which initially put on conservation was changed to surgical management. The authors could have one group of patients taking this food stuff and another group who refused this food stuff. The statistical test used to compare the levels of factor is not mentioned. Mere statement that ‘p’ values were significant will not benefit the reader. Failure to produce X-rays even for a single case weakens the study. X-rays are needed to confirm the diagnosis of a fracture and confirm the position of implants and fracture fragments. The remaining period after confirming the fracture/implant position the case shall be followed only with marker estimation. Once the desired levels of increase or tapering of marker level achieved then X-rays can be taken to correlate with clinical findings and radiology. Union as one group and the second group shall be called as non-union or delayed union. The second group (the poor callus group) is mentioned as malunion possibly by over-sight. Probably they were meaning the non union or delayed union group or defective union as malunion. This should be preferably be written non union or delayed union. Malunion means the fracture actually unites and union process is completed. In a group of fractures (hypertrophic non unions) the callus formation is excessive, still the fracture is ununited. Thus the enzyme or markers alone cannot disclose the details of the completion of union they can herald bone formation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Mukhopadhyay M, Sinha R, Pal M, Bhattacharyya S, Dan A, Roy MM. Role of common biochemical markers for the assessment of fracture union. Indian J Clin Biochem. 2011;26:274–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Praemer A, Furner S, Rice DP. Musculoskeletal conditions in the United States. Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Loder RT. The influence of Diabetes Mellitus on the healing of closed fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;232:210–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schiedel FM, Buller TC, Rödl R. Estimated patient dose and associated radiological risk from limb lengthening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:1023–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Goldstone K, Yates SJ. Radiation issues governing radiation protection and patient doses in diagnostic imaging. In: Adam A, Dixon AK, editors. Grainger & allison’s diagnostic radiology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2008. p. 162.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ryder DM, King SL, Olliff CJ, Davies E. A possible method of monitoring bone fracture and bone characteristics using a non invasive acoustic technique. In: Acoustic sensing and imaging, 29–30 March 1993, Conference Publication No 369, © IEEE; 1993. p. 159

  7. Singh VR. Bone fracture imaging study with an acoustic technique. IEEE Explore 2000, Conference Publication Volume, Issue CP476; 2000. p. 222–5.

  8. Connolly JF. Selection, evaluation and indications for electrical stimulation of un united fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981;161:39–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Marsh D. Concepts of fracture union, non-union and delayed union. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;355:S22–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shanmugasundaram Kumaravel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kumaravel, S. A Review on the Article: Role of Common Biochemical Markers for the Assessment of Fracture Union. Ind J Clin Biochem 27, 422–425 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12291-012-0233-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12291-012-0233-8

Keywords

Navigation