Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopy-assisted posterior low anterior resection of rectal cancer
Version:3Date:17 June 2014
Reviewer: Andrew Beggs
Reviewer's report:
The authors are to be congratulated on a well written paper on Laparoscopic
posterior LAR. In particular the figures are excellent and enhance the paper. The
paper is suitable for publication, and I have a few minor points to enhance the
manuscript:
Minor essential revisions:
1) Page 3 - I would disagree with the authors that the effectiveness of
laparoscopic rectal surgery is under question. The MRC CLASSIC trial has
shown the oncological outcomes are similar to open - this should be reflected in
the manuscript
2) I think the authors should emphasise in their introduction that their described
technique is for low stage rectal tumours, as T3/T4 tumours would still be dealt
with in the normal way
3) p7 line 148 - "an anal canal was placed from the anus" - this makes no sense
and should be revised
4) p12 line 147 - "but also can handle certain pelvic floor complications which
appear when separating bowel under endoscopy, such as pelvic floor bleeding" -
it is not clear what the authors mean by this - please revise
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:Laparoscopy-assisted posterior low anterior resection of rectal cancer
Version:3Date:17 June 2014
Reviewer: Andrew Beggs
Reviewer's report:
The authors are to be congratulated on a well written paper on Laparoscopic
posterior LAR. In particular the figures are excellent and enhance the paper. The
paper is suitable for publication, and I have a few minor points to enhance the
manuscript:
Minor essential revisions:
1) Page 3 - I would disagree with the authors that the effectiveness of
laparoscopic rectal surgery is under question. The MRC CLASSIC trial has
shown the oncological outcomes are similar to open - this should be reflected in
the manuscript
2) I think the authors should emphasise in their introduction that their described
technique is for low stage rectal tumours, as T3/T4 tumours would still be dealt
with in the normal way
3) p7 line 148 - "an anal canal was placed from the anus" - this makes no sense
and should be revised
4) p12 line 147 - "but also can handle certain pelvic floor complications which
appear when separating bowel under endoscopy, such as pelvic floor bleeding" -
it is not clear what the authors mean by this - please revise
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:Laparoscopy-assisted posterior low anterior resection of rectal cancer
Version:3Date:17 June 2014
Reviewer: Andrew Beggs
Reviewer's report:
The authors are to be congratulated on a well written paper on Laparoscopic
posterior LAR. In particular the figures are excellent and enhance the paper. The
paper is suitable for publication, and I have a few minor points to enhance the
manuscript:
Minor essential revisions:
1) Page 3 - I would disagree with the authors that the effectiveness of
laparoscopic rectal surgery is under question. The MRC CLASSIC trial has
shown the oncological outcomes are similar to open - this should be reflected in
the manuscript
2) I think the authors should emphasise in their introduction that their described
technique is for low stage rectal tumours, as T3/T4 tumours would still be dealt
with in the normal way
3) p7 line 148 - "an anal canal was placed from the anus" - this makes no sense
and should be revised
4) p12 line 147 - "but also can handle certain pelvic floor complications which
appear when separating bowel under endoscopy, such as pelvic floor bleeding" -
it is not clear what the authors mean by this - please revise
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