Patellar Sleeve Fracture: An Update of Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I greatly appreciated the work done and the changes made to make the article flow more smoothly. Great Job!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for the time you spent on our article, we have made the changes and improved the quality of our English, we really believe in this revision and hope that it will be better now. thanks for the advice

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper aims to consolidate the current literature on patellar sleeve fractures to guide clinicians in the accurate diagnosis and management of this specific trauma. The authors presented the literature data regarding pathomechanics, clinical and radiological diagnostics, classification and management of this uncommoncondition. Big chapter focused on the results of conservative treatment in patella sleeve fracture. Surgical techniques referred to pediatric population also summarized and critically analyzed.
The paper is well structured and narrated. The most important information quantitative data and essential comments about results of the both conservative and surgical treatment extracted from the papers summarized in the clearly organized tables. Illustrations depict typical radiographic and tomographic findings and surgical technique details. The treatment flowchart presented for simplifying decision process in patella sleeve fracture.
The literature sources analyzed are relevant to the topic and reflect both classical approaches and contemporary data.
The paper should be helpful for the above-mentioned reasons to the practicing orthopedic surgeons as well can give some ideas for the future scientific studies.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments made on our article, we have made some changes recommended by other reviewers and the editor.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article appears to be generally well-structured, with an appropriate title, abstract, and references. However, it lacks originality to justify its publication in this journal. Developing a treatment flowchart based on existing literature would have added significant value to the work. Additionally, it is important to emphasize how treatment varies with patient age and degree of breakdown. The treatment section is difficult to read, as it is merely a summary of articles with conflicting data. This article does not add anything new to the existing literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

  Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

The article appears to be generally well-structured, with an appropriate title,
abstract, and references. However, it lacks originality to justify its publication in this
journal. Developing a treatment flowchart based on existing literature would have
added significant value to the work. Additionally, it is important to emphasize how
treatment varies with patient age and degree of breakdown. The treatment section
is difficult to read, as it is merely a summary of articles with conflicting data. This
article does not add anything new to the existing literature.
Thank you for your suggestions. We have tried to review especially the
surgical treatment by adding some notes and a summary table. We have
underlined which treatments are particularly suitable for the pediatric
population by adding some interesting comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully reviewed your manuscript titled " Patella sleeve fracture: an update of literature. ". I appreciate the time and effort you have invested in preparing and submitting your manuscript. The issue addressed in your article is fundamental in orthopedic practice today. In the introduction wel done you describe the objective of the article very well, in materials and methods well done you describe the methodology very well.The results are well detailed. The well-detailed discussion could be added more articles such as the following:PMID: 35774925, PMID: 38530504, PMID: 35328476 From a linguistic point of view, reviewing English

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Review the english

Author Response

I have carefully reviewed your manuscript titled " Patella sleeve fracture: an update of
literature. ". I appreciate the time and effort you have invested in preparing and
submitting your manuscript. The issue addressed in your article is fundamental in
orthopedic practice today. In the introduction wel done you describe the objective of
the article very well, in materials and methods well done you describe the methodology
very well.The results are well detailed. The well-detailed discussion could be added
more articles such as the
following:PMID: 35774925, PMID: 38530504, PMID: 35328476 From a linguistic point
of view, reviewing English
Thank you for your suggestions. We add some interesting details in the
discussion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. In this article, the authors provide a comprehensive review of the literature, going from epidemiology to management and treatment. The article is very well written. However, I do have a few recommendations:

 

-        In the classification section, I would recommend creating a table with the 4 different types and adding their frequency. Additional variables such as non-union rates may also be added.

-        Imaging section: Additional radiographs and CT images are needed in this section. If this article seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment for orthopaedic surgeons, multiple radiographs should be displayed. Please include coronal, sagittal and axial cross-imaging.

-        Treatment: A table describing all available techniques, with their reported success rates and intraop/postop complications is needed. Otherwise, the article is hard to follow.

o   Additionally, I would restructure this section as conservative and non-conservative treatment.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. In this article, the authors
provide a comprehensive review of the literature, going from epidemiology to
management and treatment. The article is very well written. However, I do have a few
recommendations:
 
-        In the classification section, I would recommend creating a table with the 4
different types and adding their frequency. Additional variables such as non-union
rates may also be added. we appreciate the suggestion the author who proposed
the classification did not mention about the incidence of each fracture in their
cohort but we reviewed the manuscript and clarify it.
-        Imaging section: Additional radiographs and CT images are needed in this
section. If this article seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment for orthopaedic
surgeons, multiple radiographs should be displayed. Please include coronal, sagittal
and axial cross-imaging. we have added some images of the CT

-        Treatment: A table describing all available techniques, with their reported
success rates and intraop/postop complications is needed. Otherwise, the article is
hard to follow. Thanks, we add two table to clarify the treatment option
⁃ Additionally, I would restructure this section as conservative and non-
conservative treatment Thanks for your comment, we reviewed it.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

I appreciate the effort to elaborate and edit the section on surgical treatment. The article is now more comprehensive and offers several interesting insights. However, the authors did not include a summary flowchart as suggested, which would have been a valuable tool for clinical practice. A proposed treatment algorithm for different types of fractures would have significantly enhanced the value of this work. In its current form, it does not offer any distinctive features compared to existing literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

we have made the requested changes by adding a flouchart, and improving the quality of our English.
comparison between colleagues serves precisely this purpose of trying to improve ourselves more and more

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and the time you spent reviewing our article