Rhizarthrosis Bilateral – Trapeziectomy Versus Arthroplasty with Dual Mobility Prosthesis: Case Report

Review Data

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

researchers?

A: Excellent

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: Very 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: Very good

Discussion & Conclusion

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

A: Good

Comments:

The Results of this case report document that in the medium-term follow-up (12 months) of the patient, the difference is considered good for arthroplasty with dual mobility prosthesis and satisfactory for trapeziectomy. The study puts forward the Discussion that treatment of rhizoarthrosis with arthroplasty is a controversy because there are few studies that show its superiority to trapeziectomy either simple or with ligamentoplasty. Therefore, the gold standard for surgical treatment of rhizarthrosis appears to be the trapeziectomy. The Conclusion presents the main advantages registered and validated by the patient, which are the earlier return to daily activities, a better satisfaction related to the restoration of the anatomical attitude of the thumb, a better range of motion and greater strength with optimal recovery even for actions that require fine movements.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of 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: Good

Comments:
In the Legend of Figure 5 “left hand” is mentioned, but the figure corresponds to right hand of the patient. This needs to be confirmed by the author.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This case report discusses the case of a 70-year-old male who presents bilateral trapezio-metacarpal osteoarthrosis treated with two different techniques with different timelines. The patient in the current study underwent a trapeziectomy on the right hand and arthroplasty with implant on the left. The study holds significance as the Trapezio-metacarpal joint is very important because it carries out actions that are indispensable for daily activities, and a lack of it gives an important disability. Interview and clinical examination of the patient, satisfied for both procedures, has allowed the authors to highlight a meaningful difference of pinch strength between right and left thumb, both in tip, palmar and lateral pinch tests.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Corrections - Suitable for publishing after corrections

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

Thanks,
Science Repository Team