Epithelial Inclusion Cyst of the Foot Causing Pressure Ulcer and Skin Breach

Review Data

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

researchers?

Comments: Yes, the topic is relevant to the journal area of interest as it discusses a rare presentation of an epithelial inclusion cyst in the foot, which led to a pressure ulcer and skin breach. The case report provides valuable insights into the clinical findings, investigations, interventions, and outcomes of this unusual presentation.

It is contemporary and interesting for researchers, as it emphasizes the importance of accurate diagnosis, appropriate imaging, and careful management of benign lesions, especially when they lead to complications such as pressure ulcers. The case also highlights the need for a multidisciplinary approach in the management of such cases.

Abstract & Keywords

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

Comments: The abstract does include all the necessary components: it introduces the topic (epithelial inclusion cysts), outlines the case (a 50-year-old female with a pressure ulcer on her foot), explains the procedure (surgical excision), and presents the outcome (complete recovery and resolution of the ulcer).

As for the keywords, they are not explicitly mentioned in your text. Nevertheless, potential keywords based on the abstract could be: "epithelial inclusion cyst", "pressure ulcer", "foot", "surgical excision", and "histology". Adding a keyword list can help researchers find the paper more easily when searching for related topics.

Goal

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

Comments: The introduction provides a detailed overview of epithelial inclusion cysts, their common locations, typical presentation, and variability in their natural history.

Structure

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

Comments: Yes, the paper's structure appears coherent and follows a conventional structure for a case report, which includes an introduction, background and presentation of the case, clinical findings and investigations, interventions and outcomes, and a discussion on the relevance and impact of the case.

The introduction provides a detailed overview of epithelial inclusion cysts, their common locations, and the complications they can cause. This sets the stage for the case presentation and creates a clear connection to the case at hand.

The background and presentation section gives a detailed account of the patient's history and symptoms, leading to the clinical findings and investigations. This follows a logical and chronological order of events.

The interventions and outcomes section covers the surgical intervention and the subsequent histological findings, leading to a successful outcome for the patient.

The relevance and impact section discusses the implications of the case and the lessons that can be learned from it. This ties back to the goal of the paper - to report on a rare presentation of an epithelial inclusion cyst and its management.

The paper appears to be coherent with its goal, which is to present a unique case of an epithelial inclusion cyst on the foot causing a pressure ulcer, its successful management, and to discuss its relevance and potential implications in clinical practice.

Tools and Methods

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

Comments: Yes, the methods used by the authors appear to be adequate and well-used for a case study.

The authors have taken a thorough approach to diagnosing and treating the condition, using a combination of physical examination, imaging studies (X-ray, ultrasound, and MRI), and consulting with a vascular surgeon due to the potential arteriovenous malformation. This demonstrates a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach to patient care.

Surgical excision was used as the primary intervention, which is standard practice for the management of symptomatic or problematic cysts. Following surgery, histological examination was used to confirm the diagnosis, providing a definitive answer to the nature of the lesion.

Finally, patient follow-up was conducted to assess the outcome and effectiveness of the intervention, which is essential in any case study. The patient reported a highly satisfactory outcome with the resolution of symptoms and the pressure ulcer, suggesting the chosen method was successful.

However, it is worth noting that due to the nature of a case study, these methods are specific to this single patient and their unique circumstances. Although they were effective in this case, they may not be universally applicable to all patients with similar presentations.

Discussion & Conclusion

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

Comments: Yes, the methods used in this case study do align coherently with the results presented. The patient's clinical symptoms and the physical examination findings led to the decision to use radiological investigations. The results from these investigations (X-ray, Ultrasound, MRI) revealed a cystic lesion, which further guided the intervention strategy - surgical excision.

The histological analysis performed post-surgery confirmed the diagnosis of an epithelial inclusion cyst, which explains the symptoms and the findings from the imaging studies. Therefore, the methods used not only led to a precise diagnosis but also informed an effective treatment strategy, leading to a successful outcome for the patient.

So, yes, the methods and the results are coherent, and they follow a logical flow from the presentation of the case, through the process of investigation, intervention, and the final outcome.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: Yes, the author utilizes relevant literature to support the information provided in the case report.

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?

Comments: The length of the paper appears to be adequate for the topic. It's not excessively long, and it covers all the necessary elements of a case report: introduction, background and presentation, clinical findings and investigations, interventions and outcomes, and relevance and impact.

The author provides sufficient detail in each section to allow the reader to understand the patient's presentation, the diagnostic process, the intervention, and the outcome. They also discuss the relevance of this case in the broader context of clinical practice. Reducing the length could potentially remove important information and compromise the value of the case report.

Figures & Tables

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

A: The author appears to use images and legends appropriately to support the case report. Seven images are mentioned in the text, each with a brief description that indicates what the images portray. These images help to illustrate the patient's condition, the radiological findings, and the surgical intervention, providing valuable visual information to the reader.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Yes, the text provided is clear and understandable. The author uses medical terms appropriately and explains them in a way that makes the content accessible to a broad audience. The case report follows a logical structure, progressing from an introduction to the patient's background, presentation, clinical findings, investigations, interventions, outcomes, and finally, the relevance and impact of the case.

The author also effectively uses images to supplement the text and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the case. Each image is accompanied by a caption that helps the reader understand what they are looking at and how it relates to the case.

The final section, "Relevance and Impact," summarises why the case is significant and highlights the key learning points, making it clear for the reader why this case is important and what can be learned from it.

Overall, the case report is well written and communicates the information in a clear and understandable manner.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

This case report is well-written and provides a thorough examination of a unique presentation of an epithelial inclusion cyst in the foot causing pressure ulcers. It provides a comprehensive review of the patient's case, from the initial presentation to the final outcome, and it is evident that the author has a strong understanding of the subject.

Here are some additional comments and suggestions:

1.     Literature Review: While the author does cite a few sources in the introduction, it might be beneficial to include more recent literature, especially when discussing the rarity of this condition in the extremities, the typical course of the disease, and potential complications.

2.     Discussion Section: A discussion or conclusion section could be added to the end of the case report. This section could summarize the key findings, discuss the implications of the case, and compare it to other similar cases in the literature. This would provide an opportunity to further highlight the uniqueness of the case and its relevance to the broader medical community.

3.     Patient History: The report could benefit from a more detailed patient history, including any relevant past medical, family, or social history. This could provide more context for the patient's presentation and help to rule out any other potential contributing factors.

4.     Proofreading: Finally, consider proofreading the paper for minor grammatical errors or inconsistencies. For instance, in the "Clinical findings and investigations" section, the phrase "vascular surgery opinion as sought" seems like it may be a typo, and might be intended to read "vascular surgery opinion was sought."

Overall, the paper is informative and provides a comprehensive view of the case, making it a valuable contribution to the literature on epithelial inclusion cysts. With some minor adjustments, it could be further improved.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes- This manuscript is recommended for further publication.

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

Thanks,
Science Repository Team