Next Article in Journal
Carbon-Isovalent Dopant Pairs in Silicon: A Density Functional Theory Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Post-Traumatic Segmental Tibial Defects Management: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Previous Article in Journal
Drone Safety and Security Surveillance System (D4S)
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Innovative Clinical Evaluation Protocol after Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Pilot Study Using Inertial Sensors and Baropodometric Platforms
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Comparison of Three Antibiotic Prophylaxis Protocols for Preventing Postoperative Infection in Tibial Plateau Fractures

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(10), 4192; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14104192
by Carolina Montoya-delaTorre 1,*, Ernesto Muñoz-Mahamud 1,*, Jose Alonso Zumbado 1, Laura Morata 2, Judit Martínez-Peñas 3 and Oscar Ares 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(10), 4192; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14104192
Submission received: 25 March 2024 / Revised: 28 April 2024 / Accepted: 7 May 2024 / Published: 15 May 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses an important and still valid topic. It is worth continuing such studies based on microbiological diagnostics. However, overuse of such broad-spectrum drugs, in large-scale prophylaxis is quite risky and may lead to increased drug resistance. Therefore, such therapy should not be excessively used. In view of this, some ambiguities arise: 

1.  How was done the selection of antybiotics ?

2.  Which factor decided which drug to apply between groups?

3.  How were the groups of patients divided? 

4. What was the pattern antibiotic therapy introduced in the divided groups: based on the result of the microbiological examination, or empirically? 

5.  Was the therapy modified after the microbiological examination based on the available results?  

In addition, it is worth explaining the ASA and Schatzker classification systems in more detail. And finally, the authors' affiliations should also be completed.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop