Title: Poly-#-caprolactone scaffold as staple-line reinforcement of rectal anastomosis: An
experimental piglet study
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
First of all, I would like to thank you for this meticulously carried out work. I reviewed the
revised version of the article. I see that the references are still not up to date. While there are
many beautiful works that have been done, it is not appropriate not to mention them at all. I
do not find it appropriate to complete the study based on very old references. Also, we cannot
say that the method used is usable. We cannot say that it is useful. There is nothing proven in
the article. The study does not improve a previously known method. I think this article should
not be accepted.
Title: Poly-#-caprolactone scaffold as staple-line reinforcement of rectal anastomosis: An
experimental piglet study
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
First of all, I would like to thank you for this meticulously carried out work. I reviewed the
revised version of the article. I see that the references are still not up to date. While there are
many beautiful works that have been done, it is not appropriate not to mention them at all. I
do not find it appropriate to complete the study based on very old references. Also, we cannot
say that the method used is usable. We cannot say that it is useful. There is nothing proven in
the article. The study does not improve a previously known method. I think this article should
not be accepted.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Poly-#-caprolactone scaffold as staple-line reinforcement of rectal anastomosis: An
experimental piglet study
Version: 4 Date: 16 Jan 2024
Reviewer's report:
First of all, I would like to thank you for this meticulously carried out work. I reviewed the
revised version of the article. I see that the references are still not up to date. While there are
many beautiful works that have been done, it is not appropriate not to mention them at all. I
do not find it appropriate to complete the study based on very old references. Also, we cannot
say that the method used is usable. We cannot say that it is useful. There is nothing proven in
the article. The study does not improve a previously known method. I think this article should
not be accepted.
assistant