Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for their efforts producing this interesting paper about the scurgical options for treating Achilles/Triceps surae contraction. The manuscriptive gives a descriptive overview about the surgical techiniques available for addressing this pathology. It is well written and easy-to-read. 

My comments are listerd below: 

Abstract and title: please, specify it is a descriptive review.

Line 113: use extensive form at every first use of an acronym. This is valid all along the manuscript (TAL, VP, BP)

Line 143: maybe "hybridization" is a typo

Line 384: please, correct, "Vlulpius"

For each surgical procedure a brief description of the surgical technique should be provided, together with some images for a better understanding of the reader.

Please, add a conclusion paragraph.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors present a comprehensive review regarding all the different strategies for correcting equinous foot.

Despite the effort and a very inclusive discussion on the indications and the possible complications regarding the diverse techniques (that I fully appreciate), I believe that a much better work could be made. In particular, there is no complete explanation of the techniques and no reporting of the passage step by step (in a narrative review I think it is paramount). Also, I think for the readers is more appealing and useful to see some images (clinic or schematic) to explane fully all the techniques. I hope that the Authors could improve their work in that sense to be more easy for the readers to understand.

Also, look carefully on mispellation and errors. I will present A few:

Line 371, misspelled "Bayer" instead "Baker"

Line 567 "negative Silfverskiöld test" it's positive, like correctly stated in table 1

Line 558, "weekend effect on the foot" what does it mean?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Th article is overall well written, with intuitive design and easy to read and follow. However, I have some minor recommendations for the authors, which I believe will improve the scientific value.

 

-          the introduction should provide a critical review of existing literature to justify the need for the study – the current form is insufficiently detailed

-          unfortunately, Figure 1 cannot be evaluated. It is too small and the details are not seen. Please find a way to prepare this figure so it will be more clear

-          Can the authors provide a (comparative) analysis of the recurrence rates for each surgical technique in the manuscript?

-          Could the authors detail on any recent technological advancements that have been added into these surgical procedures?

-          What are the long-term follow-up protocols for patients undergoing these surgeries? Maybe a section that is designated to this topic could be of interest.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank you the Authors for the effort. I believe is a better version right now. No new images like I requested but if you don't have it, you cannot put them, I believe. I think the manuscript is suitable for publication

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf