Since its description by Paul Grammont from Dijon, France, several tens of thousands of reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (RTSA) have been performed for diverse conditions. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the complications of this procedure in the literature and in clinical practice. A total of 240 papers concerning RTSA published between 1996 and 2012 have been identified. Over 80 papers describe complications associated with this type of implant. A list of prostheses satisfying European and US standards, CE and FDA approved, has been produced on the basis of information provided by the manufacturers. Data from the literature do not support a meta-analysis. The inventory of best practices shows excellent results in the short and medium term in specific indications, while the number of complications varies between 10 and 65 % in long-term series. Complications can be classified into (A) non-specific including infections (superficial and deep), phlebitis, haematoma, neurological complications of the suprascapular, radial and axillary nerves and (B) specific complications associated with RTSA including (1) on the glenoid side: intraoperative fracture of the glenoid and acromion, late fracture of the scapula, impingement at the scapular neck (notching), glenoid loosening, dissociation of the glenoid component (snatching of the glenosphere) and fractures of the glenoid baseplate; (2) on the humeral side: metaphyseal deterioration, humeral loosening, instability of the shoulder, stiffness with limitation of external and/or internal rotation; and (3) muscular complications with fatty degeneration of the deltoid. Additionally we have identified specific situations related to the type of implant such as the disassembly of the humeral or the glenoid component, dissociation of the polyethylene humeral plate, dissociation of the metaphysis and osteolysis of the tuberosities. The integration of results from different clinical series is difficult because of the lack of a database and the multitude of implants used.

Peer-review is the core of the editorial process and the basis of the publication system. The quality of peer-review depends on the quality of the peer-reviewers. Peer reviewers are supposed to ensure that journals publish high-quality science by evaluating manuscripts and offering suggestions for improvement. Peer-reviewers are typically selected based on their expertise in the areas of research associated with the submitted manuscripts. Although being a peer-reviewer is sometimes frustrating, communication between authors, editors and reviewers in the peer-review process determines the eventual success of the publication; this communication should be formal, constructive, honest and polite [1, 2]. Specific standards of formal and ethical writing are necessary for peer-review. These standards should be maintained throughout the review process of any submitted paper in any particular journal. Peer-review is considered a biased process with identified defects [3-11]; some peer-reviewers are too young with limited experience, not all are equally skilled in the peer-review process, and very few have had a formal training and assessment methods for peer-review [1, 12, 13]. A growing body of quantitative evidence showed violations of objectivity and bias in the peer review process for reasons based on author attributes such as language, institutional affiliation, nationality, and others, authors' identity such as gender and sexuality, and reviewers' perceptions of the field such as territoriality within field, personal gripes with authors, scientific dogma, discontent/distrust of methodological advances [14, 15]. Occasionally, reviewers' comments are rude or unprofessional; in a study, more than half of 1106 anonymous respondents reported receiving at least one "unprofessional" review, and a majority of those said they had received multiple problematic comments including comments tended to personally target a scientist, lack constructive criticism, or unnecessarily harsh or cruel [15]. This editorial note aims to communicate to the readers of the journal the unified set of rules for a good and bad peer-review, and to emphasize on the avoidance and consequences of a rude peer-review.

Pigmented villonodular synovitis

No abstract

The humeral head is the second most common site for nontraumatic osteonecrosis after the femoral head, yet it has attracted relatively little attention. Osteonecrosis is associated with many conditions, such as traumatism, corticosteroid use, sickle cell disease, alcoholism, dysbarism (or caisson disease), and Gaucher's disease. The diagnosis is clinical and radiographic with MRI, with radiographs being the basis for staging. Many theories have been proposed to decipher the mechanism behind the development of osteonecrosis, but none have been proven. Because osteonecrosis may affect patients with a variety of risk factors, it is important that caregivers have a heightened index of suspicion. Early detection may affect prognosis because prognosis is dependent on the stage and location of the disease. In particular, the disease should be suspected in patients with a history of fractures, steroid usage, or sickle cell disease, and in divers. This report reviews osteonecrosis of the humeral head, with an emphasis on causes, clinical evaluation, imaging, and classification.