[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
November 10, 1923


Author Affiliations

Memphis, Tenn.

JAMA. 1923;81(19):1628. doi:10.1001/jama.1923.02650190058033

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor:  —Replying to Dr. Royal Whitman's letter (Correspondence, The Journal, November 3), commenting on my article in The Journal, October 20: The object of my address was to determine the nature of union secured in central or intracapsular fractures of the neck of the femur, as the question of treatment had been fully discussed in previous contributions. Dr. Whitman is correct in assuming that I consider artificial impaction a minor factor.The object of artificial impaction, as an adjunct, was to secure, if possible, an even higher percentage in which solid bony union occurred, for it is well known that impacted central or subcapital fractures unite by bony union in practically every case. This is due either to better fixation by impaction or to osteogenesis so induced.I have never been able to feel that "something gives" and have only been able to demonstrate, by means of the

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview