Physical Characterization of Material for the Development of Orthopedic Orthosis for Diabetic Foot

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work presented addresses a topic of great clinical interest, and that provides advances for the prevention of diabetic foot. But for publication, I recommend authors to keep these considerations in mind.

The summary should be reformulated, reflecting all sections of the work, correctly embodying the methodology.

They should add some keyword that refers to the material of the orthoses.

The abstract graph should include a legend or some clarification in such a way that it can be interpreted autonomously.

The bibliography used to support the work in the introduction is not topical, 5/7 are prior to 2013.

The objective of the work is not described clearly and concisely.

What are the criteria for the selection of the chosen materials, are authors put that are based on the previous literature (first paragraph of methodology), but what criteria?

I recommend authors to reflect on how the results found can improve clinical practice.

The conclusions should be reformulated and answer directly to the objective set.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

In this study, “CHARACTERIZATION OF MATERIALS FOR THE DEVEL- 2 OPMENT OF ORTHOPEDIC ORTHOSES FOR DIABETIC 3 FOOT”, the Authors describe materials used for making orthopedic orthoses.

The topic is interesting, the paper is well written and the goal is clear.

 

The abstract and the Introduction are clear and the English is fine. The methodology and data analysis seem to be rigorous. The results have been clearly reported and discussed.

I have few suggestions for the authors:

• In the Figure 2 (A,B,C,D), there aren’t numbers on the y-axis (Intensity).
• The Conclusions are very poor, also there aren’t limitations and future development of the study.

 

Yours sincerely,

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations to the authors for the work done to improve the manuscript, but they did not address a suggestion of great importance, the foundation of the work with recent bibliography, please take it into consideration.

On the other hand, and revised the methodology again, the work cannot conclude that it is an improvement for diabetic foot. They were not tested in diabetic patients. This must be corrected throughout the manuscript.

The work is not in the official temple.

Author Response

Point 1: Congratulations to the authors for the work done to improve the manuscript, but they did not address a suggestion of great importance, the foundation of the work with recent bibliography, please take it into consideration.

Response 1: Thanks for your collaboration. We updated almost all links at References Item and added more three references (in red color)

Point 2: On the other hand, and revised the methodology again, the work cannot conclude that it is an improvement for diabetic foot. They were not tested in diabetic patients. This must be corrected throughout the manuscript.

Response 2: Thanks a lot for your collaboration.

We have not concluded that, but we discussed the diabetes complications vision and could put this possibility in perspective for the future. Please, consider the following paragraph in the discussion:

 

The diabetic foot requires special attention. The proper distribution of weight on the feet is essential in preventing and treating injuries. The orthoses are allies in the care and rehabilitation of these patients, indicated by the American Diabetes Association, in the presence of neuropathy, regardless of the degree of involvement. Therefore, changes in the protective and structural sensitivity of the foot are definitive indications for the materials for future clinical purposes. The orthoses allow a better distribution of the plantar load, relieve pressure points so harmful to diabetic feet, reduce the likelihood of pressure ulcers forming, and aid in wound healing by clearing wounded areas in cases of injured patients.

And the Conclusion:

Podadur was the material that presented the best properties of elastic deformation, resistance, durability, lightness, energy absorption, resisting high temperatures, and showing chemical composition favorable to its physical and mechanical characteristics. Podadur was the material that stood out the most concerning the other materials, having a solid indication to produce orthopedic orthoses, followed by Evapod and Latex. On the other hand, Silicone had few positive attributes, giving it a weak recommendation. The perspectives include the diabetic human test for future clinical purposes.

As a recognition material throughout the present study, it is indicated for a particular environment and medical care. Thus, even if no material encompassed the desired characteristics, this study reveals relevant properties throughout the selection and characterization of materials that can all be useful in plantar orthoses. The chosen materials were individually studied and characterized, using multilayers that meet all the requirements of this solution in applying the materials and all the advantages of the materials in a single orthosis.

Point 3: The work is not in the official temple.

Response 3: We have already put the work on the official template. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx