- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 2 on “Swallowed dentures: Two cases and a review”
Annals of Medicine and Surgery 4 Supplement 1 (2015) S36
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Annals of Medicine and Surgery journal homepage: www.annalsjournal.com
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 on “Swallowed dentures: Two cases and a review”
1. Original submission 1.1. Recommendation Accept 1.2. Comments to the author 1. This study has the advantage of comparison of 2 techniques for hemostasis side by side. However I am not clear how steps were taken to minimize variability between the 2 groups. Were operations for each group performed by 2 surgeons of similar experience level and volume? And were these general surgeons or endocrine surgeons? 2. One of the post op parameters followed was drainage volume. Was this measured by leaving a drain in place in all patients? Is this standard at your institution? And I wonder if larger goiters wound tend to have increased volume of drainage? Was this looked at?
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2015.10.008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2015.12.020 2049-0801
Also were any goiters intrathoracic? 3. Was the recurrent laryngeal nerve monitor used for all these cases or for some? Did it affect the incidence of RLN injury if used? 4. Were all other technical aspects of the surgery standardized? For example was platysma closed in a running suture or interrupted? and same suture used for all groups? How was median raphe closed? interrupted or running or were techniques otherwise transparent and similar between the groups? Or are these possible confounding variables that may have affected results ? 5. Was BMI similar between the groups? Did patients with larger BMIs and larger necks have higher drainage regardless of type of ligation performed? 6. Regarding “bleeding” could the authors assess the use of anticoagulants and did that make a difference? Overall well written manuscript easy to follow the design and results. I would recommend for publication. Anonymous Reviewer
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Annals of Medicine and Surgery journal homepage: www.annalsjournal.com
Peer review report
Peer review report 2 on “Swallowed dentures: Two cases and a review”
1. Original submission 1.1. Recommendation Accept 1.2. Comments to the author 1. This study has the advantage of comparison of 2 techniques for hemostasis side by side. However I am not clear how steps were taken to minimize variability between the 2 groups. Were operations for each group performed by 2 surgeons of similar experience level and volume? And were these general surgeons or endocrine surgeons? 2. One of the post op parameters followed was drainage volume. Was this measured by leaving a drain in place in all patients? Is this standard at your institution? And I wonder if larger goiters wound tend to have increased volume of drainage? Was this looked at?
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2015.10.008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2015.12.020 2049-0801
Also were any goiters intrathoracic? 3. Was the recurrent laryngeal nerve monitor used for all these cases or for some? Did it affect the incidence of RLN injury if used? 4. Were all other technical aspects of the surgery standardized? For example was platysma closed in a running suture or interrupted? and same suture used for all groups? How was median raphe closed? interrupted or running or were techniques otherwise transparent and similar between the groups? Or are these possible confounding variables that may have affected results ? 5. Was BMI similar between the groups? Did patients with larger BMIs and larger necks have higher drainage regardless of type of ligation performed? 6. Regarding “bleeding” could the authors assess the use of anticoagulants and did that make a difference? Overall well written manuscript easy to follow the design and results. I would recommend for publication. Anonymous Reviewer