Dear Editor:I recently read with interest the article titled “Biomechanical Comparison of Parallel and Crossed Suture Repair for Longitudinal Meniscus Tears” by Milchteim et al[2] published in the April 2016 issue of the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (OJSM). The article is great and adds a lot to the current available knowledge, and I believe that it is of great interest to the readers of OJSM.However, in the discussion section, the authors kindly mentioned and commented on an article that I published in Arthroscopy in 2006 titled “The ‘Cruciate Suture’ for Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair: A New Technique,”[1] saying, “Abdelkafy and colleagues proposed that a ‘cruciate’ repair pattern failed at 110 N whereas a simple vertical suture failed at 67 N.” They added, “Regarding longitudinal tears, this current study found no difference between a more complex crossed pattern and a simple parallel repair pattern.”I would like to clarify that we compared the ultimate tension load (UTL) of the cruciate suture versus the UTL of a single vertical suture and that is why we found a significant difference between the 2 sutures. The authors in the aforementioned article compared the crossed suture (cruciate suture) with 2 vertical sutures, and this is probably the reason why they did not find a significant difference between the 2 constructs.We are appreciative of the comment regarding our study by the authors of the aforementioned article and only wanted to clarify the difference between the biomechanical tests used in each study.