Reviewer ’s report  
Title:  The treatment of anastomotic strictures after Roux -en-Y hepaticojejunostomy: 
"Choledochoscopic  high-frequency needle -knife electrotomy" or ballon dilation + stent 
placement.  Which one is better?  
 
Version:  0 Date:  02 Feb 2016  
 
Reviewer:  Rakesh Kumar  Gupta  
 
Reviewer's report:  
dear authors,  
This study here compares and tells us about an importannt procedure and the ways of rescue. I 
would like to congratulate them on undertaking this s tudy and ompleting it and sharing it with us 
all. This study will surely benefit the medical fraternity and I hope this will help in the 
management of the patients as well in the future. But I would like to point out that I think there a 
few misgivings abo ut this manuscript which after correction will be more suitable for 
submission.  
 
My queries are as follows:  
1. the topic of the manuscript seems to be inadequate as more than one technique has been 
described in it  
2. in the methodology, the randomisation h as not been mentioned  
3. the definition of anastomotic stricture and stenosis has not been mentioned  
4. the pre -procedure anastomotic stenosis in percentage is not given and the post -procedure 
improvement in the stenosis should have been mentioned  
5. is th ere a proper location or area from where the electrotomy should be performed?  
6. the anastomotic stricture in the patients has been mentioned only as post -operative, what is 
the duration of this post -operative period?  
7. what were the indications of hepati cojejunostomy in the first place. I think the indication for 
the surgery will bear importance in the outcome as well.  
8. statistics has not been explained in detail. the various tests that were used.  
9. the various size of the equipment used has been menti oned but for"self -made external -
internal biliary stent and built -in plastic stent with multiple side holes formed by T tube" 
nothing has been mentioned. is there a reason for that?  
10. for the follow -up period the mean duration has been mentioned but what was the range? the 
shortest duration of the follow -up would seem important.  
11. was any comparison made with patients in whom stents were not kept?  
 
 I would like the authors do clarify the above mentioned queries which I could pinpoint that I 
think are of  significance in this study.  
  
Regards,  
Dr Rakesh Gupta  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which contr ols are required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
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 statistics 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 recommend additional statistical review  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate th e 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 years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 a pplied 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 atta chments 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 confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
Title:  The treatment of anastomotic strictures after Roux -en-Y hepaticojejunostomy: 
"Choledochoscopic  high-frequency needle -knife electrotomy" or ballon dilation + stent 
placement.  Which one is better?  
 
Version:  0 Date:  02 Feb 2016  
 
Reviewer:  Rakesh Kumar  Gupta  
 
Reviewer's report:  
dear authors,  
This study here compares and tells us about an importannt procedure and the ways of rescue. I 
would like to congratulate them on undertaking this s tudy and ompleting it and sharing it with us 
all. This study will surely benefit the medical fraternity and I hope this will help in the 
management of the patients as well in the future. But I would like to point out that I think there a 
few misgivings abo ut this manuscript which after correction will be more suitable for 
submission.  
 
My queries are as follows:  
1. the topic of the manuscript seems to be inadequate as more than one technique has been 
described in it  
2. in the methodology, the randomisation h as not been mentioned  
3. the definition of anastomotic stricture and stenosis has not been mentioned  
4. the pre -procedure anastomotic stenosis in percentage is not given and the post -procedure 
improvement in the stenosis should have been mentioned  
5. is th ere a proper location or area from where the electrotomy should be performed?  
6. the anastomotic stricture in the patients has been mentioned only as post -operative, what is 
the duration of this post -operative period?  
7. what were the indications of hepati cojejunostomy in the first place. I think the indication for 
the surgery will bear importance in the outcome as well.  
8. statistics has not been explained in detail. the various tests that were used.  
9. the various size of the equipment used has been menti oned but for"self -made external -
internal biliary stent and built -in plastic stent with multiple side holes formed by T tube" 
nothing has been mentioned. is there a reason for that?  
10. for the follow -up period the mean duration has been mentioned but what was the range? the 
shortest duration of the follow -up would seem important.  
11. was any comparison made with patients in whom stents were not kept?  
 
 I would like the authors do clarify the above mentioned queries which I could pinpoint that I 
think are of  significance in this study.  
  
Regards,  
Dr Rakesh Gupta  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which contr ols are required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
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 statistics 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 recommend additional statistical review  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate th e 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 years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 a pplied 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 atta chments 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 confidential 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:  The treatment of anastomotic strictures after Roux -en-Y hepaticojejunostomy: 
"Choledochoscopic  high-frequency needle -knife electrotomy" or ballon dilation + stent 
placement.  Which one is better?  
 
Version:  0 Date:  02 Feb 2016  
 
Reviewer:  Rakesh Kumar  Gupta  
 
Reviewer's report:  
dear authors,  
This study here compares and tells us about an importannt procedure and the ways of rescue. I 
would like to congratulate them on undertaking this s tudy and ompleting it and sharing it with us 
all. This study will surely benefit the medical fraternity and I hope this will help in the 
management of the patients as well in the future. But I would like to point out that I think there a 
few misgivings abo ut this manuscript which after correction will be more suitable for 
submission.  
 
My queries are as follows:  
1. the topic of the manuscript seems to be inadequate as more than one technique has been 
described in it  
2. in the methodology, the randomisation h as not been mentioned  
3. the definition of anastomotic stricture and stenosis has not been mentioned  
4. the pre -procedure anastomotic stenosis in percentage is not given and the post -procedure 
improvement in the stenosis should have been mentioned  
5. is th ere a proper location or area from where the electrotomy should be performed?  
6. the anastomotic stricture in the patients has been mentioned only as post -operative, what is 
the duration of this post -operative period?  
7. what were the indications of hepati cojejunostomy in the first place. I think the indication for 
the surgery will bear importance in the outcome as well.  
8. statistics has not been explained in detail. the various tests that were used.  
9. the various size of the equipment used has been menti oned but for"self -made external -
internal biliary stent and built -in plastic stent with multiple side holes formed by T tube" 
nothing has been mentioned. is there a reason for that?  
10. for the follow -up period the mean duration has been mentioned but what was the range? the 
shortest duration of the follow -up would seem important.  
11. was any comparison made with patients in whom stents were not kept?  
 
 I would like the authors do clarify the above mentioned queries which I could pinpoint that I 
think are of  significance in this study.  
  
Regards,  
Dr Rakesh Gupta  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which contr ols are required in your comments to the authors.  
Yes 
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 statistics 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 recommend additional statistical review  
Quality of written English  
Please indicate th e 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 years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 a pplied 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 atta chments 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 confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant