Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic colonic resection for splenic flexure cancer: our experience.
Version: 3Date:9 October 2013
Reviewer: Christopher M Schalchta
Reviewer's report:
In 2013, this would be considered a fairly low priority publication given the wide
acceptance of laparoscopic colon surgery. Despite the correct assertion that
COST, COLOR, CLASICC and others excluded splenic flexure tumors, most
surgeons have adopted segmental resection of all parts of the colon. This paper
does add some evidence to support this, but probably isn’t that necessary at this
time.
The other issue that weakens this paper is that that there is no control group for
comparison, even a non-randomized control. How do these patients do
compared to open resection of splenic flexure tumors or resection of other parts
of the colon? These types of comparisons, if framed properly, can add insight to
this report.
Minor essential revisions:
There are a few language issues, such as Trendelemburg (Trendelenberg). Most
are minor.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Laparoscopic colonic resection for splenic flexure cancer: our experience.
Version: 3Date:9 October 2013
Reviewer: Christopher M Schalchta
Reviewer's report:
In 2013, this would be considered a fairly low priority publication given the wide
acceptance of laparoscopic colon surgery. Despite the correct assertion that
COST, COLOR, CLASICC and others excluded splenic flexure tumors, most
surgeons have adopted segmental resection of all parts of the colon. This paper
does add some evidence to support this, but probably isn’t that necessary at this
time.
The other issue that weakens this paper is that that there is no control group for
comparison, even a non-randomized control. How do these patients do
compared to open resection of splenic flexure tumors or resection of other parts
of the colon? These types of comparisons, if framed properly, can add insight to
this report.
Minor essential revisions:
There are a few language issues, such as Trendelemburg (Trendelenberg). Most
are minor.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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:Laparoscopic colonic resection for splenic flexure cancer: our experience.
Version: 3Date:9 October 2013
Reviewer: Christopher M Schalchta
Reviewer's report:
In 2013, this would be considered a fairly low priority publication given the wide
acceptance of laparoscopic colon surgery. Despite the correct assertion that
COST, COLOR, CLASICC and others excluded splenic flexure tumors, most
surgeons have adopted segmental resection of all parts of the colon. This paper
does add some evidence to support this, but probably isn’t that necessary at this
time.
The other issue that weakens this paper is that that there is no control group for
comparison, even a non-randomized control. How do these patients do
compared to open resection of splenic flexure tumors or resection of other parts
of the colon? These types of comparisons, if framed properly, can add insight to
this report.
Minor essential revisions:
There are a few language issues, such as Trendelemburg (Trendelenberg). Most
are minor.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
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