Title: Laparoscopic liver resection of segment 8 via a hepatic parenchymal transection-first
approach guided by the middle hepatic vein
Version: 3 Date: 10 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
I have read with interest the article by Nan You and colleagues entitled “Laparoscopic
anatomical resection of liver segment 8 via a hepatic parenchymal transection-first approach
guided by the middle hepatic vein”. The authors propose an interesting standardized  technique
for laparoscopic anatomic resection of Segment 8. They present their experience with
encouraging results in 14 patients who underwent laparoscopic anatomical resection of liver
segment 8 via a hepatic parenchymal transection-first approach guided by the middle hepatic
vein (MHV).
The authors are to be congratulated for the great effort in producing an original report on a new
standardized technique that contributes to the present literature in this particular field. However,
there are in my opinion some aspects that should be revised before considering publication.
Specific Comments:
- The results reported in abstract are too scarce. It is said that “no complications” were
encountered but in the main text It is said that no “severe complications” were developed. This
is not the same and It is hard to believe 0% morbidity in this type of procedure and patients even
in high volume centers. Please clarify and revise.
- Why were child pugh B patients excluded? Were these patients operated and excluded for this
study analysis or is this alone an exclusion criteria for resection in your center, even for minor
resections?
- Were all patients discussed before treatment in a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board? Please
clarify.
It is said that hemostatic products were used after resection, what products do you refer to?
Please specify.
- It is said that surgical margins were negative, It would be nice to know median and range or
mean and SD in milimeters. Please revise.
- Morbidity, even if not severe, should be reported and described. What classification of surgical
complications was used?
- There are many technical issues described in the Discussion section that could be abbreviated
and moved to methods.
- If possible, it would be nice to include a short video of the technique as supplementary material
for the readers.
- English language usage in the manuscript should be revised. There are some important
grammatical errors.
Title: Laparoscopic liver resection of segment 8 via a hepatic parenchymal transection-first
approach guided by the middle hepatic vein
Version: 3 Date: 10 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
I have read with interest the article by Nan You and colleagues entitled “Laparoscopic
anatomical resection of liver segment 8 via a hepatic parenchymal transection-first approach
guided by the middle hepatic vein”. The authors propose an interesting standardized  technique
for laparoscopic anatomic resection of Segment 8. They present their experience with
encouraging results in 14 patients who underwent laparoscopic anatomical resection of liver
segment 8 via a hepatic parenchymal transection-first approach guided by the middle hepatic
vein (MHV).
The authors are to be congratulated for the great effort in producing an original report on a new
standardized technique that contributes to the present literature in this particular field. However,
there are in my opinion some aspects that should be revised before considering publication.
Specific Comments:
- The results reported in abstract are too scarce. It is said that “no complications” were
encountered but in the main text It is said that no “severe complications” were developed. This
is not the same and It is hard to believe 0% morbidity in this type of procedure and patients even
in high volume centers. Please clarify and revise.
- Why were child pugh B patients excluded? Were these patients operated and excluded for this
study analysis or is this alone an exclusion criteria for resection in your center, even for minor
resections?
- Were all patients discussed before treatment in a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board? Please
clarify.
It is said that hemostatic products were used after resection, what products do you refer to?
Please specify.
- It is said that surgical margins were negative, It would be nice to know median and range or
mean and SD in milimeters. Please revise.
- Morbidity, even if not severe, should be reported and described. What classification of surgical
complications was used?
- There are many technical issues described in the Discussion section that could be abbreviated
and moved to methods.
- If possible, it would be nice to include a short video of the technique as supplementary material
for the readers.
- English language usage in the manuscript should be revised. There are some important
grammatical errors.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Laparoscopic liver resection of segment 8 via a hepatic parenchymal transection-first
approach guided by the middle hepatic vein
Version: 3 Date: 10 Dec 2021
Reviewer's report:
I have read with interest the article by Nan You and colleagues entitled “Laparoscopic
anatomical resection of liver segment 8 via a hepatic parenchymal transection-first approach
guided by the middle hepatic vein”. The authors propose an interesting standardized  technique
for laparoscopic anatomic resection of Segment 8. They present their experience with
encouraging results in 14 patients who underwent laparoscopic anatomical resection of liver
segment 8 via a hepatic parenchymal transection-first approach guided by the middle hepatic
vein (MHV).
The authors are to be congratulated for the great effort in producing an original report on a new
standardized technique that contributes to the present literature in this particular field. However,
there are in my opinion some aspects that should be revised before considering publication.
Specific Comments:
- The results reported in abstract are too scarce. It is said that “no complications” were
encountered but in the main text It is said that no “severe complications” were developed. This
is not the same and It is hard to believe 0% morbidity in this type of procedure and patients even
in high volume centers. Please clarify and revise.
- Why were child pugh B patients excluded? Were these patients operated and excluded for this
study analysis or is this alone an exclusion criteria for resection in your center, even for minor
resections?
- Were all patients discussed before treatment in a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board? Please
clarify.
It is said that hemostatic products were used after resection, what products do you refer to?
Please specify.
- It is said that surgical margins were negative, It would be nice to know median and range or
mean and SD in milimeters. Please revise.
- Morbidity, even if not severe, should be reported and described. What classification of surgical
complications was used?
- There are many technical issues described in the Discussion section that could be abbreviated
and moved to methods.
- If possible, it would be nice to include a short video of the technique as supplementary material
for the readers.
- English language usage in the manuscript should be revised. There are some important
grammatical errors.
assistant