Reviewer's report
Title:Progressive balloon dilatation following hepaticojejunostomy improves
outcome of bile duct stricture after iatrogenic biliary injury
Version: 1Date:22 February 2013
Reviewer: shuguang wang
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript: Luo Z, et al: “Progressive Balloon Dilatation Following
Hepaticojejunostomy Improves Outcome of Bile Duct Stricture after Iatrogenic
Biliary Injury”.
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a new procedure, consisting of
progressive balloon dilation following hepaticojejunostomy, in the treatment of
iatrogenic biliary stricture. They showed that this technique was effective. The
data was sound and it may give light to a potential better strategy for iatrogenic
biliary stricture. However there are a few concerns that should be addressed:
1. This paper desribed the usefulness of balloon dilatation to prevent bile duct
stenosis following hepaticojejunostomy for bile duct stricture after iatrogenic
biliary injury. However, endoscopic treatment for bile duct stricture following
surgery is popularly performed using balloon dilatation, and plastic or metallic
stents. Authors should stress and discuss about this procedure. (Minor Essential
Revisions)
2. What determined which patient underwent which procedure, this is of
importance as these might introduce confounding by indication. (Minor Essential
Revisions)
3. What were the unexpected adverse effects of this new procedure? The
authors do not mention what the rate of complications was in the balloon
dilatation group. (Minor Essential Revisions)
4. Change “#” in Table 1. (Minor Essential Revisions)
5. Table 2 lack statistical analysis between HJ and HJPBD groups. (Minor
Essential Revisions)
6. The study should add the content of comparing the difference of operative
information between HJ and HJPBD, such as operation time and others. (Minor
Essential Revisions)
7. The references should be updated, as there is only one article within latest 3
years that has been cited. (Minor Essential Revisions)
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Progressive balloon dilatation following hepaticojejunostomy improves
outcome of bile duct stricture after iatrogenic biliary injury
Version: 1Date:22 February 2013
Reviewer: shuguang wang
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript: Luo Z, et al: “Progressive Balloon Dilatation Following
Hepaticojejunostomy Improves Outcome of Bile Duct Stricture after Iatrogenic
Biliary Injury”.
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a new procedure, consisting of
progressive balloon dilation following hepaticojejunostomy, in the treatment of
iatrogenic biliary stricture. They showed that this technique was effective. The
data was sound and it may give light to a potential better strategy for iatrogenic
biliary stricture. However there are a few concerns that should be addressed:
1. This paper desribed the usefulness of balloon dilatation to prevent bile duct
stenosis following hepaticojejunostomy for bile duct stricture after iatrogenic
biliary injury. However, endoscopic treatment for bile duct stricture following
surgery is popularly performed using balloon dilatation, and plastic or metallic
stents. Authors should stress and discuss about this procedure. (Minor Essential
Revisions)
2. What determined which patient underwent which procedure, this is of
importance as these might introduce confounding by indication. (Minor Essential
Revisions)
3. What were the unexpected adverse effects of this new procedure? The
authors do not mention what the rate of complications was in the balloon
dilatation group. (Minor Essential Revisions)
4. Change “#” in Table 1. (Minor Essential Revisions)
5. Table 2 lack statistical analysis between HJ and HJPBD groups. (Minor
Essential Revisions)
6. The study should add the content of comparing the difference of operative
information between HJ and HJPBD, such as operation time and others. (Minor
Essential Revisions)
7. The references should be updated, as there is only one article within latest 3
years that has been cited. (Minor Essential Revisions)
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Progressive balloon dilatation following hepaticojejunostomy improves
outcome of bile duct stricture after iatrogenic biliary injury
Version: 1Date:22 February 2013
Reviewer: shuguang wang
Reviewer's report:
Manuscript: Luo Z, et al: “Progressive Balloon Dilatation Following
Hepaticojejunostomy Improves Outcome of Bile Duct Stricture after Iatrogenic
Biliary Injury”.
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a new procedure, consisting of
progressive balloon dilation following hepaticojejunostomy, in the treatment of
iatrogenic biliary stricture. They showed that this technique was effective. The
data was sound and it may give light to a potential better strategy for iatrogenic
biliary stricture. However there are a few concerns that should be addressed:
1. This paper desribed the usefulness of balloon dilatation to prevent bile duct
stenosis following hepaticojejunostomy for bile duct stricture after iatrogenic
biliary injury. However, endoscopic treatment for bile duct stricture following
surgery is popularly performed using balloon dilatation, and plastic or metallic
stents. Authors should stress and discuss about this procedure. (Minor Essential
Revisions)
2. What determined which patient underwent which procedure, this is of
importance as these might introduce confounding by indication. (Minor Essential
Revisions)
3. What were the unexpected adverse effects of this new procedure? The
authors do not mention what the rate of complications was in the balloon
dilatation group. (Minor Essential Revisions)
4. Change “#” in Table 1. (Minor Essential Revisions)
5. Table 2 lack statistical analysis between HJ and HJPBD groups. (Minor
Essential Revisions)
6. The study should add the content of comparing the difference of operative
information between HJ and HJPBD, such as operation time and others. (Minor
Essential Revisions)
7. The references should be updated, as there is only one article within latest 3
years that has been cited. (Minor Essential Revisions)
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Acceptable
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a
statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant