We read the recently published article [1] in your journal with great interest. The article gives detailed insight regarding the various methods of fixation of Day’s type II crescent fracture. This sub-classification of lateral compression pelvic injury is not uncommon and in the majority of instances needs operative intervention. Surgical management of type II crescent fracture has always remained controversial, with sufficient literature supporting anterior fixation, posterior fixation and percutaneous iliac screw or iliosacral screw fixation as established options for treatment. However, until today no study comparing all these methods on patients or cadaveric specimens has been done.This study has compared the biomechanical properties of the majority of common modes of type II crescent fractures fixation using finite element analysis. Authors have highlighted the biomechanical superiority of percutaneous fixation using single or double iliac screw plus Iliosacral screw (crossed screw fixation pattern) compared to other methods of internal fixation.As the reader, we would like to put forward some concerns based on the study analysis.In majority, type II crescent fractures are displaced with significant sacroiliac joint disruption at the fracture site and such fractures are difficult to be reduced using manual traction or close percutaneous maneuvers. Therefore, ensuring anatomical reduction of the sacroiliac joint and iliac crescent is challenging to be fixed with iliac screws in a percutaneous fashion [2].Neither in this study nor the previous study [3] published by same authors, they have mentioned the diameter of iliac screws or iliosacral screw and seem to have used the same diameter screw for iliosacral and iliac fixation (based on figure depiction). Routinely, we fix iliosacral joint using 7.3 mm cannulated screws and the diameter of the iliac screw may vary depending upon the corridors of iliac bone available.Based on finite element analysis of the study [1], the results of maximum displacement (MD) and maximum stress (MS) distribution of tested model pelvises may not be the most accurate, as the model B is devoid of any fixation to stabilize sacroiliac joint as compared to all other four models. Therefore, model B shows inferior results in terms of pelvic displacement and stress distribution. The comparison could have been made with the fixation of both the components (sacroiliac joint and iliac fracture) in all the models.The Maximum Displacement Of Crescent Fracture-Dislocation (MDCFS) after pelvis loading is minimum for model E (double iliac screw + iliosacral screw) followed by model B (posterior open approach with crescent fixation using reconstruction plate and iliac screw ‘without’ iliosacral screw). This signifies that for adequate fixation of crescent fracture-dislocation, either percutaneous double iliac screw construct or model B construct with a plate and iliac screw is ideal.Based on the study [1], the stress analysis of iliosacral screw (model C) shows it to be superior as compared to anterior sacroiliac joint plating (model A). Besides, the maximum stress holding potential of the iliosacral screw further increases when the crescent fracture is also fixed (model D and E). After analyzing the values obtained more closely, one can postulate that the iliosacral screw is the best choice to fix the sacroiliac joint, and the strength of fixation further increases when the associated crescent fracture is also fixed.Now, based on the stress analysis of individual implants used to fix the iliac (crescent) fracture, in model B, the maximum stress of reconstruction plate is 18.29Mpa, which is much more than the iliac screw (11.458) in the same model and in model D and E (12.8; 8.87), which signifies the better stress holding potential of reconstruction plate as compared to iliac screw for the fixation of the crescent fracture. Hence, model B construct can be considered a better fixation model if we also stabilize the sacroiliac joint with iliosacral screw compared to model E, which is not analyzed in this study.We would also like to know from the authors regarding their opinion on the diameter of the screws to be used as we feel that this can have a direct influence on the displacements and stability achieved. We also feel that as many of these fractures need open reduction, the use of plate and iliac screw (model B) along with Iliosacral screws can also be a good alternative from both the biomechanical aspect and also the clinical option of open reduction if required. We appreciate the authors for providing stimulating research and hope that these points shall also be clarified in future studies.