Title: Efficacy and safety of ERCP in patients with situs inversus totalis: multicenter case series
and literature review
Version: 3 Date: 10 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper summarized efficacy and safety of ERCP in patients with sinus inversus totalis:
multicenter case series and literature review
Major point
1. Method
It would be better to summarize the definition in the method part. The authors defined and stated
about expert endoscopists and difficult cannulation. However, pancreatic duct cannulation was
ambiguous.
And the authors should define about “high risk for PEP”. What kind of cases did you take
precautions against for PEP?
2. Patients
The authors wrote at discussion part that “Pappilla of all patients were successfully reached”.
However exclusion criteria included “1#Intubation failure or unable to find the major papilla”.
There was a contradiction, please clarify.
3#Results baseline characteristics
Four patients had coronary heart disease. Did they take an antithrombotic drug? May be related
to adverse events such as bleeding or myocardial infarction?
4. ERCP procedure
I cannot understand what Patient 1 to 10. It is easier to understand the table of the details of 14
cases about ERCP procedure. Please consider.
5. Adverse events
Please add the grade of adverse events at table.
6. Conclusion
The authors concluded that “Though modified position of patients seems to bring benefits in
easier manipulation and less complications,” I did not think so. Was myocardial infarction or
pneumoniae related to modified position?
Minor
1. Page 7 Line 18
Target duct meaned bile duct?
2. Page 8, Line 11
Native was miss type? It means “naive”?
3. Page 13, Line 8
The rate of SIT was different from the number written at baseline characteristics.
Title: Efficacy and safety of ERCP in patients with situs inversus totalis: multicenter case series
and literature review
Version: 3 Date: 10 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper summarized efficacy and safety of ERCP in patients with sinus inversus totalis:
multicenter case series and literature review
Major point
1. Method
It would be better to summarize the definition in the method part. The authors defined and stated
about expert endoscopists and difficult cannulation. However, pancreatic duct cannulation was
ambiguous.
And the authors should define about “high risk for PEP”. What kind of cases did you take
precautions against for PEP?
2. Patients
The authors wrote at discussion part that “Pappilla of all patients were successfully reached”.
However exclusion criteria included “1#Intubation failure or unable to find the major papilla”.
There was a contradiction, please clarify.
3#Results baseline characteristics
Four patients had coronary heart disease. Did they take an antithrombotic drug? May be related
to adverse events such as bleeding or myocardial infarction?
4. ERCP procedure
I cannot understand what Patient 1 to 10. It is easier to understand the table of the details of 14
cases about ERCP procedure. Please consider.
5. Adverse events
Please add the grade of adverse events at table.
6. Conclusion
The authors concluded that “Though modified position of patients seems to bring benefits in
easier manipulation and less complications,” I did not think so. Was myocardial infarction or
pneumoniae related to modified position?
Minor
1. Page 7 Line 18
Target duct meaned bile duct?
2. Page 8, Line 11
Native was miss type? It means “naive”?
3. Page 13, Line 8
The rate of SIT was different from the number written at baseline characteristics.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Efficacy and safety of ERCP in patients with situs inversus totalis: multicenter case series
and literature review
Version: 3 Date: 10 Oct 2022
Reviewer's report:
This paper summarized efficacy and safety of ERCP in patients with sinus inversus totalis:
multicenter case series and literature review
Major point
1. Method
It would be better to summarize the definition in the method part. The authors defined and stated
about expert endoscopists and difficult cannulation. However, pancreatic duct cannulation was
ambiguous.
And the authors should define about “high risk for PEP”. What kind of cases did you take
precautions against for PEP?
2. Patients
The authors wrote at discussion part that “Pappilla of all patients were successfully reached”.
However exclusion criteria included “1#Intubation failure or unable to find the major papilla”.
There was a contradiction, please clarify.
3#Results baseline characteristics
Four patients had coronary heart disease. Did they take an antithrombotic drug? May be related
to adverse events such as bleeding or myocardial infarction?
4. ERCP procedure
I cannot understand what Patient 1 to 10. It is easier to understand the table of the details of 14
cases about ERCP procedure. Please consider.
5. Adverse events
Please add the grade of adverse events at table.
6. Conclusion
The authors concluded that “Though modified position of patients seems to bring benefits in
easier manipulation and less complications,” I did not think so. Was myocardial infarction or
pneumoniae related to modified position?
Minor
1. Page 7 Line 18
Target duct meaned bile duct?
2. Page 8, Line 11
Native was miss type? It means “naive”?
3. Page 13, Line 8
The rate of SIT was different from the number written at baseline characteristics.
assistant