ALTHOUGH the operative treatment of fractures was made possible by Lister's demonstration that incision did not necessarily mean infection, it was not until 1894, when Sir Arbuthnot Lane began his pioneer work, that the procedure was considered seriously. Since then the literature has contained many discussions of the subject, and it would seem as though there is little left to be said. Two noteworthy and painstaking investigations have been made in the effort to evaluate the open and closed methods of treatment: one by the Committee on Treatment of Simple Fractures appointed by the British Medical Association and submitted in 1912 (10), and one by the committee appointed by the American Surgical Association and submitted in 1915 (3). A discussion of the subject should not be attempted without mentioning the chief conclusions reached by these two careful and discriminating committees. The British report was, briefly, as follows: 1. The results of non-operative and operative treatment in children are practically the same: 90.5 per cent good function in the non-operative cases, and 93.6 per cent in the operative. 2. There is a progressive depreciation of the functional results from non-operative treatment as the age of the patients advances, that is to say, the older the patient the worse the result. 3. At nearly all ages, operative treatment produces a higher percentage of good results than non-operative. 4. Although the functional result may be good and the anatomic result indifferent, the most certain way to obtain a good functional result is to secure a good anatomic result. 5. A method which does not definitely promise a good anatomic result should not be chosen. 6. In order to secure the most satisfactory results from operative treatment, it should be resorted to as soon after the accident as possible, and not following the failure of the non-operative measures. 7. The operative treatment of fractures requires special skill and experience and such facilities and surroundings as will insure asepsis. 8. The mortality rate directly due to the operative treatment of simple fractures is so low that it can not be used as an argument against operative treatment. Finally, for surgeons and practitioners who are unable to avail themselves of the operative treatment, the non-operative procedures will remain for some time safer and more serviceable. The foregoing conclusions were backed by a careful report filled with figures and percentages. It is clear that the Committee was convinced that the operative treatment of simple fractures gave better functional and anatomic results than the non-operative, but it is also clear that the members felt the promiscuous use of this method by those not properly trained or experienced or in poorly equipped hospitals was dangerous.