THE ARTICLE IS IMPORTANT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A WHOLESALE TRANSFER TO THE PONSETTI METHODOLGY OF LATE AND DIFFICULT CLUBFEET ARE NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED ANYMORE.

HOWEVER I WOULD ADVISE THE AUTHORS TO MAKE SOME ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ARTICLE TO MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE.

1] THERE IS A DISCREPANCY OF THE AGE RANGE BETWEEN THE ABSTRACT AND THE MAIN TEXT.

2] IT WOULD BE BETTER TO AVOID PERCENTAGES IN TC INDEX AS IT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING.

3] LINE 1 OF PARA 2 IN THE INTRODUCTION IS TOO RADICAL IN THE PONSETTI ERA AND NEEDS TO BE TONED DOWN.

4] THE AUTHORS MENTION THAT THE FEET DID NOT RESPOND TO THE PONSETTI METHOD OF TREATMENT AND NONE OF THEM WAS SYNDROMIC. IT IS DIFFICULT TO GO ALONG THE FACT THAT ALL 43 FEET NEEDED A COMPLETE SUBTALAR RELEASE. THE CAUSE OF THE RESISTANCE AND THE NEED TO GO FOR COMPLETE SUBTALAR RELEASE IN ALL CASES NEEDS TO BE MENTIONED.

5] IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE ENTIONED WHETHER THE FEET WERE G2-3 AT THE OUTSET OR AFTER THE PONSETTI CORRECTION.

6] THE SCORING WOULD BE MORE ACCEPTABLE IF THE PIRANI SCORE WAS INCLUDED.

7] REFERENCES NEED TO BE UPDATED AND THE PAPER NEEDS A MESSAGE WHICH INCLUDES THE FAILURE OF THE PONSETTI METHOD.

1] I HAVE WORKED ON THE TURCO METHOD FOR OVER 3 YEARS.

2] I WAS INVOLVED IN ESTABLISHING THE PONSETTI METHOD IN KASHMIR.