Posted by Dr. Mohit K Patralekh on 15 Apr 2016 01:45:06 PM GMTReviewed by
Author Invited Reviewers
What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
This paper describes an unusual case of unilateral four part posterior fracture dislocation of shoulder due to electrical injury.The authors claim that infection,by increasing vascularity,possibly protected against avascular necrosis(AVN) of head.Although they have cited one animal experimental study demonsterating increased blood flow after infection,the claim still appears to be higlhly speculative and unusual.
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
The case described here is very rare.The authors claim that infection,by increasing vascularity,possibly protected against avascular necrosis(AVN) of head.This claim is novel and unusual.
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Yes
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Yes.Unusual explanation
If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
This is a case report
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
Yes
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
They may conduct a study in future to demonsterate increase in vascularity/blood flow after infection-which may protect against AVN
Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
May be presented in a seminar or conference.
Other Comments:
The authors claim that infection,by increasing vascularity,possibly protected against avascular necrosis(AVN) of head.This may be counterintuitive for many and hence controversial.The head fragment had no significant soft tissue attachment at surgery.The size of different fragments and status of head cartilage may also be mentioned.
Competing interests: .
Invited by the author to review this article? : Yes
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?: No
References:
None
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Qualified Orthopaedic Surgeon
How to cite: Patralekh M K.A rare injury of posterior four part fracture dislocation of shoulder following electrical injury- Did infection had role in humeral head salvage?[Review of the article 'A rare injury of posterior four part fracture dislocation of shoulder following electrical injury- Did infection had role in humeral head salvage? ' by James B].WebmedCentral 2016;7(4):WMCRW003281
This paper describes an unusual case of unilateral four part posterior fracture dislocation of shoulder due to electrical injury.The authors claim that infection,by increasing vascularity,possibly protected against avascular necrosis(AVN) of head.Although they have cited one animal experimental study demonsterating increased blood flow after infection,the claim still appears to be higlhly speculative and unusual.
The case described here is very rare.The authors claim that infection,by increasing vascularity,possibly protected against avascular necrosis(AVN) of head.This claim is novel and unusual.
Yes
Yes.Unusual explanation
This is a case report
Yes
They may conduct a study in future to demonsterate increase in vascularity/blood flow after infection-which may protect against AVN
May be presented in a seminar or conference.
The authors claim that infection,by increasing vascularity,possibly protected against avascular necrosis(AVN) of head.This may be counterintuitive for many and hence controversial.The head fragment had no significant soft tissue attachment at surgery.The size of different fragments and status of head cartilage may also be mentioned.
.
Yes
No
None
Qualified Orthopaedic Surgeon