Background: After total knee arthroplasty (TKA), patients have limited knee range of motion (ROM), trophic changes and pain. Cryotherapy and compression are recommended in the literature, but no study has shown that cryotherapy and compression combined leads to better results than cryotherapy alone. The primary objective was to compare knee ROM after 21 days of rehabilitation post-TKA between patients who underwent rehabilitation with compressive cryotherapy with those who had cryotherapy alone. The secondary objectives were to compare other trophic, pain and functional outcomes. Methods: Forty patients were randomized into two groups: Standard Cryotherapy (SC = 20, median age 77 years), which applied cold packs along with their rehabilitation; and Compressive Cryotherapy (CC = 20, median age 76 years), which received cold compression. Knee joint’s passive and active ROM (primary outcome) were measured with a goniometer. Knee’s circumference, fluctuation test, pain at rest and during activity, 6-minute walking test (6MWT) and KOOS questionnaire were secondary outcomes. The groups were compared on D1 (baseline) and D21 of rehabilitation. A survival analysis has compared the groups on D1, D8, D15, D21. Results: All subjects had a significant improvement in all the parameters on D21 relative to D1 (p < .05), except for pain at rest (p = .065 for CC and p = .052 for SC). On D21, the CC group had a significantly larger improvement in the joint effusion (p = .002), pain during activity (p = .005), 6MWT (p = .018) and KOOS (p = .004) than the SC group. Based on the survival analysis, the CC group had significantly faster improvement in the joint ROM (p = .011 for flexion and p = .038 for extension) and knee circumference (p = .013) than the SC group. Conclusions: Both cryotherapy methods improved joint ROM, trophic changes, pain and function. Adding dynamic compression to a cryotherapy protocol provided further benefits: a significantly faster improvement in passive knee flexion ROM, a greater reduction of swelling, and pain during activity. Similarly, walking distance and KOOS questionnaire were significantly better for CC. Trials registration: The study was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database on 14/09/2023 (identifier: NCT06037824).

Background The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript’s quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods Opinion article. Aim To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific “response to reviews” along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts’ quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Background The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript’s quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods Opinion article. Aim To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific “response to reviews” along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts’ quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

This bibliometric study examines the intellectual structure, evolution, and collaboration patterns of phytotherapy research within sports science to identify key themes and research gaps. Publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection from 1991 to 2024 were analyzed using a search strategy combining phytotherapy and sports medicine terms, yielding 3404 records, of which 368 met the inclusion criteria after systematic screening. Performance analysis assessed publication trends, citation impact, and author productivity, while science mapping techniques—including keyword co-occurrence, bibliographic coupling, and co-authorship network analysis—were conducted using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. Thematic positioning was evaluated through Callon’s centrality-density framework. Results indicate steady growth in the field, with a CAGR of 11.83% and peak output in 2021, involving 2103 authors across 199 sources. International collaboration reached 22.55%, led by the United States, United Kingdom, and China. Dominant research themes include exercise, inflammation, oxidative stress, and phytochemicals such as curcumin and resveratrol. Thematic mapping highlights exercise performance and supplementation as central topics. Overall, the field demonstrates significant expansion, though increased international collaboration and clinical translation are needed.

Moebius syndrome (MS) is a rare congenital disorder characterized by bilateral facial paralysis, significantly impacting an individual’s ability to convey emotions. The lengthening temporalis myoplasty (LTM) surgery is a crucial palliative intervention that can restore the smile in patients with MS by transferring the functional temporalis muscle to the paralyzed facial commissure. However, successful outcomes are closely tied to postoperative functional rehabilitation. This case report details the experience of a 29-year-old woman with severe MS who underwent LTM surgery followed by a comprehensive rehabilitation program. Over a period of 12 months, the patient achieved a spontaneous and symmetrical smile through a three-stage rehabilitation program focused on mandibular, voluntary, and spontaneous smile recovery. Speech therapy and psychological support were also integral components. This case underscores the importance of adopting a holistic approach to ensure successful and enduring outcomes from smile restoration surgery in patients with MS.