Abstract
A significant lesson for those assessing the work of others stems from the necessity to review what has been written before. It remains a common but human error to misinterpret or misrepresent the words of others and indeed, for inconsistencies in these to become apparent. This is certainly so in the field of congenital hand surgery and especially so with discussion of thumb duplication/polydactyly. Many of the presentations in this journal issue deal with the subject of thumb duplication. All involve a consideration of classification despite an emphasis on investigative measures and techniques in some. For ease of reading, I will place my comments on these articles within the categories of classification, investigations assisting management decisions and alternative techniques, though the contents of each article are not necessarily restricted to these categories.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
