prediction using a computed tomography (CT)ebased technique [1]. The authors need congratulating for their work, but we would like to raise some concerns about this study:1. The authors have derived an improper conclusion that "CT-based 3D preoperative planning for primary total knee arthroplasty has clinical implications for predicting appropriate size and alignment of the component in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis." However, their inference is not in line with the topic discussed in this study, which focuses on the intraobserver and interobserver variability in component size prediction and has not performed any correlation between the predicted and the finally implanted sizes. Hence, drawing an inference that CT-based size prediction has implications in predicting "appropriate" size would be incorrect. 2. The exclusion criteria have not been elaborated, in this pilot study. We wondered if the authors have excluded the patients with severe extra-articular deformities and those who had a significant bone loss, as these patients usually require special reconstructive procedures for the filling up of the bone defect such as cement, cement-screw construct, bone graft, and wedges. 3. The methodology of doing the CT scan is scanty in this study, as it is not clear whether the CT scan was a complete scan or just scout films at the level of the hip, knee, and ankle. We have used the CT scan for preoperative templating and found that the scout films are good enough to calculate the mechanical axis. It significantly decreases the radiation exposure due to the CT scan [2]. If the authors had subjected the patients to complete scans, then the amount of radiation exposure to the patients included in the study may raise some ethical issues. 4. The authors have mentioned improved interobserver and intraobserver agreement using CT scans but did not explain this in detail. We have noticed that an interobserver agreement increases with the seniority and experience of the observer, probably due to better understanding and identification of the anatomical landmarks [3]. We believe that in the present study the ease of identification of anatomical landmarks using CT scans also helped improve interobserver agreement. 5. In the table enumerating parameters for ideal size prediction for the tibia, the authors have mentioned that the ideal size was one which prevented overhang and "notching." We did not understand the meaning of "notching" on the tibial side, as it is commonly documented on the femoral side only. It is known, that one of the leading concerns for the tibial side component is the correct coverage, and the presence of underhang on the tibial side may lead to tray subsidence as it sits solely on cancellous bone. The authors should have included this criterion in the prediction of an ideal tibial size [4].