Submited on: 16 Mar 2012 08:39:32 AM GMT
Published on: 17 Mar 2012 07:14:58 AM GMT
We do the same
Posted by Dr. Gabriel Conca on 14 Apr 2012 08:44:26 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:


    Inclusion of fluoroscopy for visualization of TP for  localization of lumbar plexus could resulte in successful block in patients where localization based on anatomical landmarks failed.



    More studies are required to prove its definitive role and the number of cases is not large!

  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    anaesthesia practitioner

  • How to cite:  Conca G .We do the same[Review of the article 'An Easy Solution for Successful Lumbar Plexus Block in Arthroplasty Surgery of Patients with Poorly Defined Landmarks ' by Jadon A].WebmedCentral 2012;3(4):WMCRW001684
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse