Anastomosis between Median and Musculocutaneous Nerve: Presentation of a Very Rare Anatomical Variation in Comparison to Classical Divisions
, Agata Grazia D’Amico 2,†, Noemi Di Lorenzo 1, Grazia Laura Di Grado 1, Egle Matranga 1, Giulio Spinoso 1, Leonardo Luca Bavuso 1, Antonella Marino Gammazza 1, Francesca Rappa 1, Fabio Bucchieri 1, Francesco Cappello 1,3, Weronika Piotrowska 4, Jan Henryk Spodnik 4, Edyta Spodnik 4 and Sławomir Wójcik 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a case study.
The authors provide a nice presentation of a very rare anatomical variation the nerve fibers anastomosis between the musculocutaneous (MCN) and the median (MN) nerves. This finding is not new because it has been described in the anatomical handbooks (Bergman, R.A.; Tubbs, R.S.; Shoja, M.M.; Loukas, M. Bergman's comprehensive encyclopaedia of human anatomic variation. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2016; pp 1069-1089.) and original papers (Nascimento, S.R.; Ruiz, C.R.; Pereira, E.; Andrades, L.; de Souza, C.C. Rare anatomical variation of the musculocutaneous nerve - case report. Rev. Bras. Ortop. 2016, 51, 366-369.).
Minor suggestions:
The intention of the authors of the study is inconsistent taking into account the title (Anastomosis between median and musculocutaneous nerve: a rare anatomical variation) and the sentence in lines 48-49 (Anatomic variations of the communication between MCN and MN are relatively common as a consequence of different factors acting during embryological development) – „rare” vs „common” doesn’t sound, this should be modified. I would modify the title as follows: „Anastomosis between median and musculocutaneous nerve: a presentation of very rare anatomical variation in comparison to classical divisions.”
The observation was performed once during the anatomical dissection of twelve cadavers, which is why I strongly suggest modifying the title. A conclusion about the further studies to confirm this variation in a Discussion section should be also introduced.
Author Response
To the Editor of Anatomia
Resubmission of the manuscript entitled “Anastomosis between median and musculocutaneous nerve: a rare anatomical variation” (Manuscript ID: 1746085).
Dear Editor,
I and my co-authors have read the reviewers comments and want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to resubmit the paper. The changes have been reported (highlighted in red) in this version of manuscript. Below this message, a point-by-point response to the comments. We hope that now the manuscript is suitable for publication in Anatomia.
Reviewer comment #1 (RC#1): The intention of the authors of the study is inconsistent taking into account the title (Anastomosis between median and musculocutaneous nerve: a rare anatomical variation) and the sentence in lines 48-49 (Anatomic variations of the communication between MCN and MN are relatively common as a consequence of different factors acting during embryological development) – „rare” vs „common” doesn’t sound, this should be modified. I would modify the title as follows: „Anastomosis between median and musculocutaneous nerve: a presentation of very rare anatomical variation in comparison to classical divisions.”. The observation was performed once during the anatomical dissection of twelve cadavers, which is why I strongly suggest modifying the title.
Authors’ Reply (AR): Thank you for this comment and for the suggestion, we have modified the title of the manuscript.
RC#1.1: A conclusion about the further studies to confirm this variation in a Discussion section should be also introduced.
AR: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion, we have modified the discussion accordingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presented from Barone et al., "Anastomosis between median and musculocutaneous nerve: a 2 rare anatomical variation" is an interesting case report. However there are some major critical points to improve:
1) The authors should improve the introduction (for example they should motivate why they decided to study....)
2) The authors must improve the results: in detail they should insert a table to include each measurement for each corp.
3) It is not clear if they have the ethical approved number.
4) They should request the support of a professional english native to edit the text.
Author Response
To the Editor of Anatomia
Resubmission of the manuscript entitled “Anastomosis between median and musculocutaneous nerve: a rare anatomical variation” (Manuscript ID: 1746085).
Dear Editor,
I and my co-authors have read the reviewers comments and want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to resubmit the paper. The changes have been reported (highlighted in red) in this version of manuscript. Below this message, a point-by-point response to the comments. We hope that now the manuscript is suitable for publication in Anatomia.
RC#2: The authors should improve the introduction (for example they should motivate why they decided to study....).
AR: We thank the reviewer for this comment, we have modified the introduction accordingly.
RC#2.1: The authors must improve the results: in detail they should insert a table to include each measurement for each corp.
AR: We thank the reviewer for this comment, we have added a table accordingly.
RC#2.2: It is not clear if they have the ethical approved number.
AR: We have added the sentence of ethics committee approval in materials and methods section.
RC#2.3: They should request the support of a professional english native to edit the text.
AR: The text was revised by a professional English native.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors satisfied all my concerns, I propose the acceptance of the manuscript
