Title: Clinical application of the Intersphincteric Approach with Internal incision combined with
Counter- Drainage for Deep Perianal Abscess
Version: 3 Date: 31 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the chance for reviewing this paper. Interesting subject and a reflection
of the daily practice. Although the study is retrospective with not large sample (questionable
power?) but still an important knowledge addition to the subject. A good abscess treatment is
necessary to avoid recurrence and fistula.
I have the following comments for the authors:
1. it is unclear for me who and how the patients were selected for the treatment type. It is very
important to clarify in details.
2.It is not clear if there were patients with observed internal opening in the control group that
might be the reason for lower healing rate.
3. the authors should cleary specify the number of patients with observed internal opening in
both groups.
4. It is also relevant to inform the reader about the qualification of the surgeon doing the
procedure in both groups.
5. Who performed the follow-up evaluation?
6. Consider revision of table 1 for better lay-out.
7. Consider revision of the method description of the treatment group, it is some how unclear
and difficult to understand.
8. How come the postoperative treatment includes routine antibiotics? There is no solid evidence
for this practice apart for immunosupression and weak patients. Please advocate for this practice.
Title: Clinical application of the Intersphincteric Approach with Internal incision combined with
Counter- Drainage for Deep Perianal Abscess
Version: 3 Date: 31 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the chance for reviewing this paper. Interesting subject and a reflection
of the daily practice. Although the study is retrospective with not large sample (questionable
power?) but still an important knowledge addition to the subject. A good abscess treatment is
necessary to avoid recurrence and fistula.
I have the following comments for the authors:
1. it is unclear for me who and how the patients were selected for the treatment type. It is very
important to clarify in details.
2.It is not clear if there were patients with observed internal opening in the control group that
might be the reason for lower healing rate.
3. the authors should cleary specify the number of patients with observed internal opening in
both groups.
4. It is also relevant to inform the reader about the qualification of the surgeon doing the
procedure in both groups.
5. Who performed the follow-up evaluation?
6. Consider revision of table 1 for better lay-out.
7. Consider revision of the method description of the treatment group, it is some how unclear
and difficult to understand.
8. How come the postoperative treatment includes routine antibiotics? There is no solid evidence
for this practice apart for immunosupression and weak patients. Please advocate for this practice.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Clinical application of the Intersphincteric Approach with Internal incision combined with
Counter- Drainage for Deep Perianal Abscess
Version: 3 Date: 31 Oct 2024
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for giving me the chance for reviewing this paper. Interesting subject and a reflection
of the daily practice. Although the study is retrospective with not large sample (questionable
power?) but still an important knowledge addition to the subject. A good abscess treatment is
necessary to avoid recurrence and fistula.
I have the following comments for the authors:
1. it is unclear for me who and how the patients were selected for the treatment type. It is very
important to clarify in details.
2.It is not clear if there were patients with observed internal opening in the control group that
might be the reason for lower healing rate.
3. the authors should cleary specify the number of patients with observed internal opening in
both groups.
4. It is also relevant to inform the reader about the qualification of the surgeon doing the
procedure in both groups.
5. Who performed the follow-up evaluation?
6. Consider revision of table 1 for better lay-out.
7. Consider revision of the method description of the treatment group, it is some how unclear
and difficult to understand.
8. How come the postoperative treatment includes routine antibiotics? There is no solid evidence
for this practice apart for immunosupression and weak patients. Please advocate for this practice.
assistant