Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 0 Date: 17 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
It is my pleasure to review the manuscript. In this manuscript entitled “Ultrasoic endoscopy
guiding to cut scar of esophageal stricture after variceal sclerotherapy”, the authors reported that
ultrasoic endoscopy guiding to cut scar was safe and reliable, which could reduce the occurrence
of perforation and bleeding. This study describes a meaningful subject; however, I have some
concerns for clarifying the following points.
Major concerns
1. Please consider stating the purpose of the study in the Introduction.
2. Please consider describing the details of the technique used to incise the stenosis with the
Dual-knife (e.g., the settings of the high-frequency generator, the procedure, etc.). Were there
cases with multiple incisions?
3. Since the diagnostic method based on EUS findings when measuring the thickness of fibrosis
by EUS against the stenosis is unclear, I recommend that the authors describe the diagnostic
procedure using EUS in detail. If the stenosis is strong, the fibrosis will be thicker. Since
ultrasound attenuates at depth, it makes it difficult to evaluate the depth of the stenosis.
4. There appears to be no mention of research ethics; please consider including an ethics
statement, with the IRB approval number.
5. If there was a follow-up protocol after stenosis treatment that includes the frequency of upper
endoscopic examinations and consultations, I recommend that the authors describe details of
this protocol.
6. The author states that ultrasound endoscopy-guided incisions can reduce stenosis and
perforation; I would recommend discussing this within the DISCUSSION, citing literature on
the frequency of complications in incisional treatment when EUS is not used.
Minor concerns
1. Method, Inclusion criteria:
Please consider describing in the text how the stenosis diameter is measured.
2. Method, Exclusion criteria:
The exclusion criteria (1) and (2) are a bit unclear. Please consider providing details if clear
criteria are available.
3. Method, Assessment "The body of a standard gastroscope can pass through the esophagus
without any resistance"
Please consider providing a comprehensive list of the names of the scopes used.
4. Please provide the details of the ultrasonic endoscope.
5. Please check the entire manuscript for typographical errors.
#Result: “Child-plug”: Is Child-Pugh correct#
#Result: “There were among 1 to 6 times of ESI fefore”: Should it be "before"?
#Result: “Distances to incisor of the scar was among 34cm to 39cm, and derections”: Is
“direction” correct#
Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 0 Date: 17 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
It is my pleasure to review the manuscript. In this manuscript entitled “Ultrasoic endoscopy
guiding to cut scar of esophageal stricture after variceal sclerotherapy”, the authors reported that
ultrasoic endoscopy guiding to cut scar was safe and reliable, which could reduce the occurrence
of perforation and bleeding. This study describes a meaningful subject; however, I have some
concerns for clarifying the following points.
Major concerns
1. Please consider stating the purpose of the study in the Introduction.
2. Please consider describing the details of the technique used to incise the stenosis with the
Dual-knife (e.g., the settings of the high-frequency generator, the procedure, etc.). Were there
cases with multiple incisions?
3. Since the diagnostic method based on EUS findings when measuring the thickness of fibrosis
by EUS against the stenosis is unclear, I recommend that the authors describe the diagnostic
procedure using EUS in detail. If the stenosis is strong, the fibrosis will be thicker. Since
ultrasound attenuates at depth, it makes it difficult to evaluate the depth of the stenosis.
4. There appears to be no mention of research ethics; please consider including an ethics
statement, with the IRB approval number.
5. If there was a follow-up protocol after stenosis treatment that includes the frequency of upper
endoscopic examinations and consultations, I recommend that the authors describe details of
this protocol.
6. The author states that ultrasound endoscopy-guided incisions can reduce stenosis and
perforation; I would recommend discussing this within the DISCUSSION, citing literature on
the frequency of complications in incisional treatment when EUS is not used.
Minor concerns
1. Method, Inclusion criteria:
Please consider describing in the text how the stenosis diameter is measured.
2. Method, Exclusion criteria:
The exclusion criteria (1) and (2) are a bit unclear. Please consider providing details if clear
criteria are available.
3. Method, Assessment "The body of a standard gastroscope can pass through the esophagus
without any resistance"
Please consider providing a comprehensive list of the names of the scopes used.
4. Please provide the details of the ultrasonic endoscope.
5. Please check the entire manuscript for typographical errors.
#Result: “Child-plug”: Is Child-Pugh correct#
#Result: “There were among 1 to 6 times of ESI fefore”: Should it be "before"?
#Result: “Distances to incisor of the scar was among 34cm to 39cm, and derections”: Is
“direction” correct#
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Endoscopic ultrasonography guided cutting scar of esophageal stricture after endoscopic
injection sclerotherapy
Version: 0 Date: 17 Apr 2022
Reviewer's report:
It is my pleasure to review the manuscript. In this manuscript entitled “Ultrasoic endoscopy
guiding to cut scar of esophageal stricture after variceal sclerotherapy”, the authors reported that
ultrasoic endoscopy guiding to cut scar was safe and reliable, which could reduce the occurrence
of perforation and bleeding. This study describes a meaningful subject; however, I have some
concerns for clarifying the following points.
Major concerns
1. Please consider stating the purpose of the study in the Introduction.
2. Please consider describing the details of the technique used to incise the stenosis with the
Dual-knife (e.g., the settings of the high-frequency generator, the procedure, etc.). Were there
cases with multiple incisions?
3. Since the diagnostic method based on EUS findings when measuring the thickness of fibrosis
by EUS against the stenosis is unclear, I recommend that the authors describe the diagnostic
procedure using EUS in detail. If the stenosis is strong, the fibrosis will be thicker. Since
ultrasound attenuates at depth, it makes it difficult to evaluate the depth of the stenosis.
4. There appears to be no mention of research ethics; please consider including an ethics
statement, with the IRB approval number.
5. If there was a follow-up protocol after stenosis treatment that includes the frequency of upper
endoscopic examinations and consultations, I recommend that the authors describe details of
this protocol.
6. The author states that ultrasound endoscopy-guided incisions can reduce stenosis and
perforation; I would recommend discussing this within the DISCUSSION, citing literature on
the frequency of complications in incisional treatment when EUS is not used.
Minor concerns
1. Method, Inclusion criteria:
Please consider describing in the text how the stenosis diameter is measured.
2. Method, Exclusion criteria:
The exclusion criteria (1) and (2) are a bit unclear. Please consider providing details if clear
criteria are available.
3. Method, Assessment "The body of a standard gastroscope can pass through the esophagus
without any resistance"
Please consider providing a comprehensive list of the names of the scopes used.
4. Please provide the details of the ultrasonic endoscope.
5. Please check the entire manuscript for typographical errors.
#Result: “Child-plug”: Is Child-Pugh correct#
#Result: “There were among 1 to 6 times of ESI fefore”: Should it be "before"?
#Result: “Distances to incisor of the scar was among 34cm to 39cm, and derections”: Is
“direction” correct#
assistant