Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Endoscopic balloon dilatation for benign hepaticojejunostomy anastomotic stricture using 
short double -balloon ent eroscopy in patients with a prior Whipple's procedure: a retrospective 
study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Sep 2017  
 
Reviewer: Daisuke Masuda  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The author described Endoscopic balloon dilatation for benign hepaticojejunostomy anastomotic 
stricture using short double -balloon enteroscopy in cases of prior Whipple's procedure: a 
retrospective syudy.   
This is an interesting article because of referri ng long -term ontcome of endoscopic balloon 
dilation alone for treating HJAS using double balloon endoscopy.   
 
minor revisions  
1. Author's median times of scope insertion and biliary cannulation rate, that is, short term 
results, are very excellent in pres ent article.  Balloon dilation under double balloon 
endoscopy is first choice for treatment of HJAS?  If stent deployment is better, which 
cases is correct for stent deployment?  
2. Author's success rate of inserting double balloon endoscopy to HJ anastomo sis is 100%, 
very high and inserting time is median 13 minutes, short.  Difficulty of inserting double 
balloon endoscopy is similar among enrolled cases in this present article?   
3. Are these results similar compared with those of other stricture, for exa mple, Roux -en-Y 
anastomosis?     
4. Author's long -term HJA patency at one, two, and three year were 73%, 55%, and 49%, 
respectively.  What do authors think about these long term outcoms comparison of 
percutaneous transhepatic treatment?  
5. On respect of lo ng term outcomes, stent deployment is considered as better treatment 
than balloon dilation only?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any st atistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five year s received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy  of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidenti al comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Endoscopic balloon dilatation for benign hepaticojejunostomy anastomotic stricture using 
short double -balloon ent eroscopy in patients with a prior Whipple's procedure: a retrospective 
study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Sep 2017  
 
Reviewer: Daisuke Masuda  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The author described Endoscopic balloon dilatation for benign hepaticojejunostomy anastomotic 
stricture using short double -balloon enteroscopy in cases of prior Whipple's procedure: a 
retrospective syudy.   
This is an interesting article because of referri ng long -term ontcome of endoscopic balloon 
dilation alone for treating HJAS using double balloon endoscopy.   
 
minor revisions  
1. Author's median times of scope insertion and biliary cannulation rate, that is, short term 
results, are very excellent in pres ent article.  Balloon dilation under double balloon 
endoscopy is first choice for treatment of HJAS?  If stent deployment is better, which 
cases is correct for stent deployment?  
2. Author's success rate of inserting double balloon endoscopy to HJ anastomo sis is 100%, 
very high and inserting time is median 13 minutes, short.  Difficulty of inserting double 
balloon endoscopy is similar among enrolled cases in this present article?   
3. Are these results similar compared with those of other stricture, for exa mple, Roux -en-Y 
anastomosis?     
4. Author's long -term HJA patency at one, two, and three year were 73%, 55%, and 49%, 
respectively.  What do authors think about these long term outcoms comparison of 
percutaneous transhepatic treatment?  
5. On respect of lo ng term outcomes, stent deployment is considered as better treatment 
than balloon dilation only?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any st atistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five year s received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy  of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidenti al comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Endoscopic balloon dilatation for benign hepaticojejunostomy anastomotic stricture using 
short double -balloon ent eroscopy in patients with a prior Whipple's procedure: a retrospective 
study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 03 Sep 2017  
 
Reviewer: Daisuke Masuda  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
The author described Endoscopic balloon dilatation for benign hepaticojejunostomy anastomotic 
stricture using short double -balloon enteroscopy in cases of prior Whipple's procedure: a 
retrospective syudy.   
This is an interesting article because of referri ng long -term ontcome of endoscopic balloon 
dilation alone for treating HJAS using double balloon endoscopy.   
 
minor revisions  
1. Author's median times of scope insertion and biliary cannulation rate, that is, short term 
results, are very excellent in pres ent article.  Balloon dilation under double balloon 
endoscopy is first choice for treatment of HJAS?  If stent deployment is better, which 
cases is correct for stent deployment?  
2. Author's success rate of inserting double balloon endoscopy to HJ anastomo sis is 100%, 
very high and inserting time is median 13 minutes, short.  Difficulty of inserting double 
balloon endoscopy is similar among enrolled cases in this present article?   
3. Are these results similar compared with those of other stricture, for exa mple, Roux -en-Y 
anastomosis?     
4. Author's long -term HJA patency at one, two, and three year were 73%, 55%, and 49%, 
respectively.  What do authors think about these long term outcoms comparison of 
percutaneous transhepatic treatment?  
5. On respect of lo ng term outcomes, stent deployment is considered as better treatment 
than balloon dilation only?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any st atistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an  
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further  
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five year s received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an  
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this  
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose  
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the  
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds  or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below.  If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy  of the journal. I understand that my name will be included  
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report  
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors'  
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments  
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidenti al comments  
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant