Reply to Letter: Frequency and number of resuscitation related rib and sternum fractures are higher than generally considered

Abstract

We thank you for forwarding to us the letter received from Kralj E. et al. concerning our recent editorial considering the frequency and number of resuscitation related rib and sternum fractures (Resuscitation 2015; 93: A1–A2). They have drawn to our attention an unintentional error in the editorial, which suggests that the frequency of rib fractures observed in their study was similar to that previously reported. This is clearly not the case. The error arose from misunderstanding the conclusion of this study in the abstract, which states “It is generally considered that at least 1/3 of resuscitated patients sustain rib fractures and at least 1/5 sustain sternum fractures”. This is not a conclusion drawn from their study but, as we understand it, a general observation drawn from previously published work used to illustrate the new knowledge obtained from their study.We apologise to the authors of the most recent paper for this unintentional error, which is corrected by their letter.In making this apology we are pleased that we both agree as regards the wide variation of rib and sternal fracture rates at autopsy and the potential use of Post-Mortem CT scanning (PMCT) to improve future knowledge within this field.Conflict of interest statementNo conflicts of interest to declare. We thank you for forwarding to us the letter received from Kralj E. et al. concerning our recent editorial considering the frequency and number of resuscitation related rib and sternum fractures (Resuscitation 2015; 93: A1–A2). They have drawn to our attention an unintentional error in the editorial, which suggests that the frequency of rib fractures observed in their study was similar to that previously reported. This is clearly not the case. The error arose from misunderstanding the conclusion of this study in the abstract, which states “It is generally considered that at least 1/3 of resuscitated patients sustain rib fractures and at least 1/5 sustain sternum fractures”. This is not a conclusion drawn from their study but, as we understand it, a general observation drawn from previously published work used to illustrate the new knowledge obtained from their study. We apologise to the authors of the most recent paper for this unintentional error, which is corrected by their letter. In making this apology we are pleased that we both agree as regards the wide variation of rib and sternal fracture rates at autopsy and the potential use of Post-Mortem CT scanning (PMCT) to improve future knowledge within this field. Conflict of interest statementNo conflicts of interest to declare. No conflicts of interest to declare.