Dear Editor,
We read the article ‘Variations in Superficial Palmar Arch: Case Series with Clinico-anatomical Perspective’ on adult cadavers with curiosity and interest1. We appreciate that this study included different aspects and clinical features. We also noticed that this manuscript mentioned one of our study results in the discussion section of this article. However, there were some misunderstandings, we suppose. Therefore, we corrected some mistakes related to our study and to express them more accurately and clearly.
Although our study was mentioned as a radiological and cadaver study in fetuses in the article, only human fetuses were examined in our study2. Our dissection results were classified according to the comparable types of Zarzecki et al.’s study3.
Other remarks on our study: The superficial palmar arch in 80 fetuses was 72.5% complete type and 27.5% incomplete type2. However, the mentioned study stated that the most common type in the results of our research was incomplete type A. Although it is thought that incomplete types of incidences are highlighted in the article, it is not clearly stated. It should also be noted that type A (47.5%) was the most common type in the complete group and type A (15%) was the most common in the incomplete group in our study.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards,
