Biomechanical Evaluation Method to Optimize External Fixator Configuration in Long Bone Fractures—Conceptual Model and Experimental Validation Using Pilot Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

the paper of Thiran Sellahewaet al. intitle “Biomechanical evaluation method to optimize external fixator configuration in long bone fractures – Conceptual model and experimental validation using pilot study” reported an interesting pilot study focused on a surgical pre-planning tool, to assist surgeons compare mechanical properties of a fracture site under different fixator configurations, and thereby identify the optimum solution.

The paper is well written and in line with the aim of the journal.

 

However, before considering the paper for the publication in the Appl. Mech. Journal the following minor revisions should be perform

 

Minor revision

In both abstract and introduction authors should better explain the aim of this study ”the aim of this pilot study was ….”

 

The abstract is too generic. A final sentence that summarized the results should be add

 

Figure 4 is unprofessional. The authors should improve or delete it

Author Response

Dear sir/madam,

Thank you very much for going through our paper and for your feedback. I have made the changes suggested by you in the new draft.

Please see our comments below in blue:

Minor revision

In both abstract and introduction authors should better explain the aim of this study ”the aim of this pilot study was ….” - Added in new draft

The abstract is too generic. A final sentence that summarized the results should be add - Added in new draft

Figure 4 is unprofessional. The authors should improve or delete it - Removed from paper.

Thank you

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting manuscript on optimization of external fixator
configuration in long bone fractures. I believe this manuscript will be interesting to broader audience and therefore I support its publication after minor adjustments.

1. line 64 and 104 should be written in few sentences as the rest of the manuscript. I od not see the need to emphasize these sections
2. line 158 introduce the full name of the abbreviation AO/OTA
3. Great methods and results
4. please add limitation section to discussion section
5. please provide more comparison of your study with previous studies in the discussion section

Author Response

Dear sir/madam,

Thank you very much for going through our paper and for your feedback. We have made the changes suggested by you in the new draft.

Please see our comments below in blue:

1. line 64 and 104 should be written in few sentences as the rest of the manuscript. I od not see the need to emphasize these sections - Changes made in new draft
2. line 158 introduce the full name of the abbreviation AO/OTA - Full name of the organization added. I have added their commonly used name 'AO Foundation / Orthopaedic Trauma Association' instead of the full name 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen'.
3. Great methods and results - Thank you very much
4. please add limitation section to discussion section - Added in new draft
5. please provide more comparison of your study with previous studies in the discussion section - Comparisons added to the overall framework and the models proposed.

Please let us know if these changes are suitable or if we need to make more changes.

Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

English grammar should be checked.

Check the length of the sentences.

Author Response

Dear sir/madam,

Thank you very much for going through our paper and for your feedback. We have made the changes suggested by you in the new draft.

Please see our comments below in blue:

English grammar should be checked - Checked and changes made

Check the length of the sentences - Changes made where possible

Please let us know your thoughts.

Thank you