By the same token, we chose not to exclude any of the procedures done in a typical podiatrist’s practice, including injections and percutaneous drainages. While a proportion of the 16,804 surgical procedures identified in our study involved foot injections (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] 20550) or drainage of a joint/bursa/cyst (CPT 20605 and 20600), incidence rates are computed at the patient level (n = 7,264 in our full study population), thus many patients had multiple procedures that included both these and more extensive surgeries. In performing a sensitivity analysis adjusting for injection/drainage procedures, we find three patients with symptomatic postprocedure VTE who received both these procedures and more invasive surgeries. Adjusting our sample to include only those who had a more invasive procedure, we find the pool reduced to 5,621 individuals, and we continue to compute low adjusted incidence rates of VTE at 0.39% overall (0.21% for deep vein thrombosis only; 0.18% for pulmonary embolism only). Incidence rates remain in the low risk strata, and our conclusion that VTE prophylaxis is not indicated for routine podiatric procedures in patients without any additional risk factors for VTE remains valid, even after adjusting for injections/drainage. As we note in our paper, definitive decisions about VTE prophylaxis should be made on an individual patient basis; in this we agree with Drs Budny and Rogers.