Sir,We read with interest the above titled article published in the IJO (May 2013).[1] The authors are to be commended on their study and we agree with most of the points that they have so eloquently addressed. However, the article does raise the question as to whether it is the volume of the lesion or the residual circumference of intact bone after curettage that should be the determining factor regarding the necessity to reconstruct the defect to avoid postoperative fractures.The article has focused on the volume of the lesion being the determining factor regarding the incidence of postoperative fracture. While the longitudinal length does deserve consideration, we believe that the residual circumference of intact bone after curettage is more important and should be the deciding factor as this eventually determines the resistance to fracture on subsequent loading. Our algorithm published in the IJO in 2007 mentions that if more than 2/3rd of the residual cortical circumference is intact then it would be reasonably safe to proceed without filling the defect.[2] We have found this an easily applicable and good clinical parameter to follow.The article mentions that lesions with less than 5 cm subchondral bone are not suitable for this procedure as they are more prone to collapse and intraarticular fracture. We feel this may have been a typographical error and the authors meant “less than 5 mm” as has been stated in our algorithm.[2]