MRI Findings of Muscle Damage after Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Complete Muscle Preserving Anterolateral Supine Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, I want to congratulate the authors for this very well-designed study. The manuscript offers valuable and novel information to clinicians. I recommend for publication of the manuscript after minor revision.
- I would like to see a table with direct comparison of muscle cross sectional area preoperatively vs. postoperatively, without the use of the ratio using the contralateral leg.
- Please describe the rehabilitation protocol of the patients. Did all of them proceed with physiotherapy?
- It would be great to know if the impact on the gluteus medius, gluteus minimus and tensior fascia lata was correlated to surgical time
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Congratulations for your study on MRI findings of muscle damage after total hip arthroplasty using the complete muscle preserving procedure with an anterolateral supine approach.
I have just few comments or suggestion in order to clarify your paper.
Title: do you think it could be possible to shorten it?
Introduction:
pag. 2 line 42: I think that you could add something in order to inform about the possible correlation between SGN injury and TFL atrophy.
pag. 2 line 55-56: "the conjoint tendon, ...muscle preservation": please, could you clarify what does it means "are confirmed directly"?
Material and Methods:
pag. 3 line 87: maybe it could be better to write "...and the Harris hip score for each muscle...", have I understood the meaning of the sentence? please clarify.
pag. 3 lines 95-97 are the same than 97-99
fig. 1-5: is it possible to add more comprehensive legends?
Discussion
Pag. 8 line 210-211: "...Excessive OI dissection...severe damage": is it possible to add a reference?
Pag. 8 line 213: do you think it could be better to reword hyper-rotation with external-rotation?
Pag. 8 line 219: "...for DAA,...are posterior": please clarify.
Pag. 8 line 226: "entered": please reword
Pag. 9 lines 228-269: I think that it could be better to shorten this part of the discussion is not fully sopported by the presented results.
Pag. 10 line 270: "entry": please reword
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx