Reviewer's report
Title:Ligation-Assisted Endoscopic Enucleation for the diagnosis and resection
of Small Gastrointestinal Tumors Originating from the Muscularis Propria
Version: 2Date:26 March 2013
Reviewer: Arjun Koch
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors with a well done study to demonstrate what appears to
be a relatively safe technique to enucleate small SMT's.
There are some remarks from my side that I believe will improve the manuscript:
Major compulsatory revisions:
1. The small SMT's less than 2 cm have a very low potential for malignant
transformation. Therefor often a surveillance policy is offered to patients. What is
their standard surveillance protocol their hospital?
2. I agree that the burden of a small SMT can be taken away by enucleating it
and also the need for further endoscopic follow-up. Why this yearly endoscopic
follow-up? This erases the advantage of resection and ending surveillance. Were
the elesions not resected completely? There is no mentioning of completeness of
resection by histopathological assessment.
3. Can the authors elaborate on why they choose to close the wound with clips
and adhesive sprays? For sure the use of adhesive spray is a quite unorthodox
approach and in my opinion completely unnessecary.
4. They have performed 43 procedures in 2 years time. Was there a learning
curve? Did procedure times diminish over time?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Ligation-Assisted Endoscopic Enucleation for the diagnosis and resection
of Small Gastrointestinal Tumors Originating from the Muscularis Propria
Version: 2Date:26 March 2013
Reviewer: Arjun Koch
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors with a well done study to demonstrate what appears to
be a relatively safe technique to enucleate small SMT's.
There are some remarks from my side that I believe will improve the manuscript:
Major compulsatory revisions:
1. The small SMT's less than 2 cm have a very low potential for malignant
transformation. Therefor often a surveillance policy is offered to patients. What is
their standard surveillance protocol their hospital?
2. I agree that the burden of a small SMT can be taken away by enucleating it
and also the need for further endoscopic follow-up. Why this yearly endoscopic
follow-up? This erases the advantage of resection and ending surveillance. Were
the elesions not resected completely? There is no mentioning of completeness of
resection by histopathological assessment.
3. Can the authors elaborate on why they choose to close the wound with clips
and adhesive sprays? For sure the use of adhesive spray is a quite unorthodox
approach and in my opinion completely unnessecary.
4. They have performed 43 procedures in 2 years time. Was there a learning
curve? Did procedure times diminish over time?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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:Ligation-Assisted Endoscopic Enucleation for the diagnosis and resection
of Small Gastrointestinal Tumors Originating from the Muscularis Propria
Version: 2Date:26 March 2013
Reviewer: Arjun Koch
Reviewer's report:
I congratulate the authors with a well done study to demonstrate what appears to
be a relatively safe technique to enucleate small SMT's.
There are some remarks from my side that I believe will improve the manuscript:
Major compulsatory revisions:
1. The small SMT's less than 2 cm have a very low potential for malignant
transformation. Therefor often a surveillance policy is offered to patients. What is
their standard surveillance protocol their hospital?
2. I agree that the burden of a small SMT can be taken away by enucleating it
and also the need for further endoscopic follow-up. Why this yearly endoscopic
follow-up? This erases the advantage of resection and ending surveillance. Were
the elesions not resected completely? There is no mentioning of completeness of
resection by histopathological assessment.
3. Can the authors elaborate on why they choose to close the wound with clips
and adhesive sprays? For sure the use of adhesive spray is a quite unorthodox
approach and in my opinion completely unnessecary.
4. They have performed 43 procedures in 2 years time. Was there a learning
curve? Did procedure times diminish over time?
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
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