Abstract
We read with great interest the comment you made on the article by Siala et al. about midcarpal arthrodesis with magnesium-based compression screws.
We also read the article you cited and await the final conclusions of the study even though it treats exclusively scaphoid fractures.
We agree on the general difficulty to conclude to loosening with absorbable material compared to titanium material since it is difficult to distinguish the normal process of resorption from breakage during that resorption.
However, in the reported case, the failure of material was seen on X-Ray at a very early stage with clinical concordance which leaves too little doubt.
Moreover, we had the same breakage with 2 other unpublished patients with the same wrist arthrodesis at an early stage leaving few reasonable doubt about the cause of breakage.
In this particular case we think that a 3.2 mm screw may have, indeed, applied more compression but can be considered too voluminous for carpal bones and, as stated in the comment made, there is no reference for screw diameter role in midcarpal arthrodesis regarding outcomes.
Nevertheless, resorbable implants are an interesting innovation with generally good to excellent results for some indications. In our experience, wrist arthrodesis was not one of them.