Next Article in Journal
Animal Model Dependent Response to Pentagalloyl Glucose in Murine Abdominal Aortic Injury
Next Article in Special Issue
Glenoid Component Loosening in Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Association between Radiological Predictors and Clinical Parameters—An Observational Study
Previous Article in Journal
Prospective International Multicenter Pelvic Floor Study: Short-Term Follow-Up and Clinical Findings for Combined Pectopexy and Native Tissue Repair
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fracture-Specific and Conventional Stem Designs in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Acute Proximal Humerus Fractures—A Retrospective, Observational Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/jcm10020218
Review Report
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Clinical Outcome of Two-Stage Revision after Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection

J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(2), 218; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10020218
by Sebastian Klingebiel 1,*, Christoph Theil 1, Georg Gosheger 1, Kristian Nikolaus Schneider 1, Thomas Ackmann 1, Maximilian Timme 2, Dominik Schorn 3, Dennis Liem 4 and Carolin Rickert 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(2), 218; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10020218
Submission received: 1 December 2020 / Revised: 30 December 2020 / Accepted: 4 January 2021 / Published: 9 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Replacement Surgery and Rehabilitation of the Shoulder)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper by Klingebiel et al. deals with the clinical evaluation of a two-stage approach to revise infected joint prostheses. The study is retrospective and limited to few hundreds of patients, with different clinical history and different implanted prostheses. These factors significantly reduce the relevance of the information provided by the collected data, as correctly stated by the same Authors at lines 411-417. However, the Authors succeeded in confirming literature trends, thus offering supporting evidence for the suitability of two-stage revision arthroplasty in specific scenarios. I suggest a careful revision of the paper to guarantee that each of the inserted figures is cited in the manuscript and relevant for the discussion (e.g. figure 4 is not recalled in the text). Please also revise English language throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Thank you and kind regards,

Sebastian Klingebiel

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear sir, the work addressesa interesting topic, but the work presents some important drawbacs. First of all, it is a too long text, it should be shortened. Information on the previous situation of patients is scare. They should clarify how many had been surgical treated prior of arthroplasty. Most were fractures, many had received a previous osteosynthesis?.The classification of the infection between low-grade and acute does not seem appropiate to me (In the results, low-grade, acute, subacute...?). Likewise, the diagnostic process is not well clarified. Perhaps as it is a retrospective study, it may cause errors. There are many other aspects that must be discussed and clarified. For example, half of patients had positive cultures at the time of reimplantation. We must consider that the infection has been eradicated?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Thank you and kind regards,

Sebastian Klingebiel

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear sir, Thank you for taking my opinion into account, the work has improved and i think  it may be of intertest to readers.

Back to TopTop