Tarsometatarsal Joint Preparation Using a Modified Dorsal Approach vs. the Standard Approach: A Cadaver Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. This cadaver study compares the performance of two different approaches in terms of joint preparation for Lisfranc joint arthrodesis. The article is well written. The introduction is comprehensive. The methodology is clear and well described. The discussion is detailed. The conclusions are consistent with the results. Therefore I think this article is suitable for publication. However some minor revisions are needed by the authors:
1) please check the sentence at lines 44-46 in the introduction;
2) in the results, on lines 146-149, I do not understand how the "range" can be expressed as a percentage, please clarify this point or express the variability as a range of values or by using a standard deviation;
3) please check the sentence in line 153 of the discussion.
Thank you.

Author Response

We have attached the responses to the reviews comments.   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present an anatomical study on 10 fresh frozen cadavers to compare the surgical exposure between the conventional 2 incision approach and one incision approach (which is the subject of the study).

This is a well designed and nicely executed study. I only have a few comments:

Were the reviewers blinded? If so, how was this achieved?

The outcome of interest is anatomical preparation. However, strain on the soft tissue (possibly leading to wound healing problems) and access for fracture reduction and placement of osteosynthesis (e.g. screws) are also relevant. How do the two approaches compare in regards to these aspects?

Author Response

We have attached the responses to the reviews comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf