A “Floating Glenoid” after a Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Case Report with Literature Review

Review Data

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

researchers?

A: Very good

Abstract & Keywords

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

A: Good

Comments: Abstract has not been provided.

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: Very good

Discussion & Conclusion

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

A: Very good

Comments: The case description is adequate. The Discussion section is well supported with the observations presented in this report and the relevant literature is adequately discussed. It demonstrates that surgical removal of the glenoid implants and conversion of surgery to a hemiarthroplasty is a viable salvage procedure with a reasonably good outcome in patient who had undergone reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). It also identifies the preventive factors to avoid the complications of rTSA. The Conclusion states that early diagnosis and prompt treatment are necessary to halt ongoing clinical manifestations and to prevent further deterioration.

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

Comments:

·       Figure 2F has not been mentioned in the figure legend.

·       Figures 3A, 3B, Figures 5A, 5B, Figures 6A and 6B should be separately explained in the figure legends.

·       In Figure 9, part B seems to be missing from the picture.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments:

·       In the 7^th sentence of the Introduction, “of” should be inserted before “surgery”.

·       Words like “single-photon”, “pain-free”, “new-onset”, “anti-gravity”, “soft-tissue”, “single-institution” should be hyphenated.

·       In the 4^th sentence of the 6^th paragraph of the Discussion, the verb “recommend” should be changed to “recommended”.

·       In the 3^rd sentence of the 9^th paragraph of the Discussion, “in” should be replaced with “while” before “classifying”.

·       Words like “may”, “hemiarthroplasty” are misspelled in the text section of the manuscript.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This case report is the first documented rare case of multiple non-traumatic fractures around the glenoid after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) via a deltopectoral approach in a 84-year-old, right-hand dominant female. Six months after surgery, a floating glenoid was diagnosed across the spine of the scapula, extending through the neck of the scapula. This study focuses on the management of this rare case by converting rTSA to a hemiarthroplasty. Self-assisted elevation well above shoulder level with no pain six months postoperatively implies the success of this surgery. The patient reported no further complaints. This is the first case report in literature addressing a “floating glenoid” fracture following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Further research is required to establish best management practices of these fracture complications associated with rTSA in order to achieve optimal outcomes.

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