There is a Correlation between Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis and a Circle-Type Morphology of the True Pelvis, but Not with Pelvic Incidence

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Good

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Very good

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Very good

Comments: The Discussion section aptly analyses the influence of pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic morphology (pelvic ratio) on fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) with the help of supportive literature. The Conclusion is consistent with the evidence presented in the article. It demonstrates that patients with a circle-type morphology of the pelvis shows an increased risk of developing fragility fractures of the pelvis than an ellipse-type pelvis. No significant correlation was found between PI and fragility fractures of the pelvis. The limitations of this study are also properly addressed.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Very good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Very good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Very good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments:

·       In the 2^nd sentence under the section “Purpose” of Abstract, “a” should be inserted before “lack” and “of” should be inserted after “lack”.

·       In the 7^th sentence under the subheading “Influence of the Pelvic Anatomy” of Discussion, “for” should be inserted after “compensate”.

·       Words like “proper”, “type”, “overall”, “might”, “required”, “morphology, “between” are misspelled in the text section of the manuscript.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This single-center retrospective study aims to investigate the effect of anatomical conditions such as pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic ratio (PR) on 141 fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP). It also examines the ratio of the diameter of transverse true pelvis (DT) and diameter of the sagittal true pelvis (DS) to classify the circle-type and ellipse-type morphology of the pelvis. Further, the findings indicated that FFP type 2 fractures occurred most frequently and female patients were more affected than male due to higher incidence of osteoporosis in female population. Based on the statistical analyses, this study demonstrates that circle-type morphology of the pelvis is significantly more often associated with fragility fractures of the pelvis than an ellipse-type morphology and there is no statistical correlation found between PI and fragility fractures of the pelvis. The study is limited as the influence of positional spinopelvic parameters could not be assessed due to missing long spine and standing lumbar X-ray images. Further examinations with standing and long spine X-ray images are necessary to analyse the influence of the positional spinopelvic parameters on fragility fractures of the pelvis.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team