Application of Tenodesis for an Extremely Rare Hand Extensor Injury in an Athlete: A Case Report

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest

Comments: Yes, the topic is relevant to the journal area of interest.

Abstract & Keywords

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

Comments: The abstract in the paper provides a summary of the background, the specific case of a rare hand extensor injury, the surgical treatment applied, and the outcome. The chosen keywords include "sports medicine," "hand extensor injuries," and "tenodesis," which are appropriate given the focus on a sports-related surgical case involving a hand injury.

Goal

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

Comments: The introduction explicitly states the goal as addressing traumatic hand extensor tendon injuries, particularly focusing on a specific rare injury in the context of sports, specifically kickboxing. It clearly defines the scope and significance of the problem in the sports medicine field, making it unambiguous​

Structure

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

Comments: The structure of the paper includes an introduction that outlines the importance and context of the injury, a detailed case description, a description of the surgical technique used, and a discussion of the results and their implications. This structure aligns well with the goal of the paper, as it provides a comprehensive look at the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of the specific injury.

Discussion & Conclusion

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

Comments: The discussion and conclusion directly relate to the results presented earlier. They discuss the rarity of the case, compare it with existing literature, and detail the outcomes of the chosen surgical method. These sections are coherent with the earlier results, which showed functional improvement and pain resolution for the patient.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: The author extensively cites relevant literature throughout the paper, especially when discussing the rarity of the injury, treatment options, and outcomes. References are made to various studies and case reports that support the observations and treatment approach used​.

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 paper's length seems appropriate given the significance and rarity of the topic. It provides enough detail to understand the case fully without appearing redundant. There does not seem to be an immediate need to shorten the paper as it contributes valuable case-specific insights to the literature on sports-related injuries​.

Figures & Tables

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

A: The paper includes figures with legends describing MRI images and surgical techniques, which are relevant and well-labeled, aiding in the clarity of the technical descriptions. The notations and legends in the figures are clear and contribute effectively to the understanding of the text​.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: The writing style is clear and academic, with technical terms well-defined and explained. It is accessible to readers with a background in the subject area, and the structure facilitates an easy understanding of the progression from problem identification to solution​.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

Overall, the paper is well-written, meticulously researched, and provides a valuable contribution to sports medicine literature, particularly in the treatment of rare injuries. It could be enhanced by perhaps including a broader discussion of preventative measures in sports to avoid such injuries, but this is not essential to the quality of the current case report.

This evaluation suggests that the paper is well-constructed and achieves its purpose effectively, with strong use of literature and clear communication of its findings and implications.

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