Long-Term Results of Third Generation of Rotating Hinge Arthroplasty in Patients with Poliomyelitis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Essentially, the article contains no deficiencies and is up to date. However, the abstract is incorrect. The concrete result is missing here.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Actually there was some mistake during last editing of the manuscript and results and conlusions in were completely missed the abstract session. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have deleted the redundant part and replaced it with the missing part.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Numbers "120.000" and "70.000" be in English notation such as:  "120,000". Please follow the correct instructions for authors for when submitting a manuscript

2. Please give a clearer link between the impact of poliomyelitis and the need for knee arthroplasty. This is not an orthopedic journal to presume everyone is known to the topic.

3. "One patient was submitted to controlateral procedure" - the translation is feasible in English here.

4. "in no patient strength was 4/5 or normal" please replace this with a statement that makes sense in English

5. "Table 1 resumes the demographic and preoperative data". Summarizing and Resuming are two different things. Please revise

6. The authors are stating various types of implants were used, but later they mention that only the RHK implants were considered for the study. There is a confusion or methodology flaw. Please correct this

7. please elaborate on the preoperative and postoperative outcome measurements

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See points 1, 3, 4, 5 above.

Author Response

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- can the authors provide an explanation for abbreviating poliomyelitis as AAP?

 

- stating that Poliomyelitis is considered a disease of the past is misleading. It is largely controlled in many parts of the world, but not of the past. There are areas with still ongoing polio

 

- I cannot understand how how 21 TKAs in 20 patients lead to a final sample of 11 patients and 12 procedures?

 

- include the exclusion and inclusion criteria for the study participants and a flow diagram

 

- what were the reason for choosing between surgical approaches?

 

- Justify the choice of statistical tests and where have you applied them

 

- while I know the answer, authors should consider explain the readers on how specific preoperative conditions influenced the choice of surgical technique and implant type

 

- what were some strategies used in the surgical procedure to minimize the risk of recurrent deformities

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses as attachment.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is now improved and the requests have been answered. It can be published.