- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 2 on “Single incision laparoscopic resection for diverticulitis cohort study”
International Journal of Surgery 13 (2015) S50
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Surgery journal homepage: www.journal-surgery.net
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 on “Single incision laparoscopic resection for diverticulitis cohort study”
1. Original submission 1.1. Recommendation Major revision. 1.2. Comments to the author This manuscript represents a large series of patients underwent SILS for the treatment of diverticular disease by a single team. The advantage of this manuscript is the large number of patients, and in this regard, it is of interest for surgeons. Several points however may potentially improve this manuscript: 1. The methods section does not explain the method of data collection. Is this a retrospective study? A retrospective analysis of a prospective database? A prospective protocol? 2. The eligibility criteria for surgery is not completely clear. Eligibility criteria of “median” number of episodes of diverticulitis is not clear to me. Eligibility should include a fixed criterion, and the median number of episodes in the series should be part of the results. In addition, the sentence stating that patients who had a median of four episodes presented fewer postoperative complications is not clear. 3. The methods section contains plenty of data that should be part of the results section, such as BMI, and these data are actually repeated once again in the results.
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.05.012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.06.014
4. The methods section should also specify how long-term followup was established. Have all patients been actively followed, by whom, and for how long? 5. Table 1 does not add any information that is not been already provided in the text. Either the text should be shortened to include only the most important data, or the table should be erased. The only items in the table that is not mentioned in the text is “drainage”, and it is not clear what kind of drainage this means. 6. The result of this study with only three minor complications of wound hematoma, without any infectious complications whatsoever, in a series of nearly 500 colectomies, is probably the best ever reported. I cannot recall another series with such low complication rate. The authors should discuss potential reasons for this result, including potential failure to record all complications. Oded Zmora, MD, Attending Colorectal Surgeon Sheba Medical Center, Surgery and Transplantation, Department of Surgery B, Tel Hashomer, 52621, Israel E-mail address: [email protected]. Available online 17 June 2015
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Surgery journal homepage: www.journal-surgery.net
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 on “Single incision laparoscopic resection for diverticulitis cohort study”
1. Original submission 1.1. Recommendation Major revision. 1.2. Comments to the author This manuscript represents a large series of patients underwent SILS for the treatment of diverticular disease by a single team. The advantage of this manuscript is the large number of patients, and in this regard, it is of interest for surgeons. Several points however may potentially improve this manuscript: 1. The methods section does not explain the method of data collection. Is this a retrospective study? A retrospective analysis of a prospective database? A prospective protocol? 2. The eligibility criteria for surgery is not completely clear. Eligibility criteria of “median” number of episodes of diverticulitis is not clear to me. Eligibility should include a fixed criterion, and the median number of episodes in the series should be part of the results. In addition, the sentence stating that patients who had a median of four episodes presented fewer postoperative complications is not clear. 3. The methods section contains plenty of data that should be part of the results section, such as BMI, and these data are actually repeated once again in the results.
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.05.012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.06.014
4. The methods section should also specify how long-term followup was established. Have all patients been actively followed, by whom, and for how long? 5. Table 1 does not add any information that is not been already provided in the text. Either the text should be shortened to include only the most important data, or the table should be erased. The only items in the table that is not mentioned in the text is “drainage”, and it is not clear what kind of drainage this means. 6. The result of this study with only three minor complications of wound hematoma, without any infectious complications whatsoever, in a series of nearly 500 colectomies, is probably the best ever reported. I cannot recall another series with such low complication rate. The authors should discuss potential reasons for this result, including potential failure to record all complications. Oded Zmora, MD, Attending Colorectal Surgeon Sheba Medical Center, Surgery and Transplantation, Department of Surgery B, Tel Hashomer, 52621, Israel E-mail address: [email protected]. Available online 17 June 2015