Title: Comparative Outcomes of ERAS and Conventional Methods in Laparoscopic Sleeve
Gastrectomy: A 5-Year Prospective Cohort Study in Saudi Arabia
Version: 2 Date: 07 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank to the Editors for the opportunity to review this paper. This study compares the
management of patients in the ERAS and non-ERAS protocols. This is a very important topic;
however, I have a few comments on the paper.
Methods
1.  Were all of diabetes mellitus the inclusion criteria? I think the authors analyzed type 2 DM,
please correct
2. What do the Authors mean by 'reoperations' as an exclusion criterion? Does it mean that if a
patient underwent reoperation due to complications, they were not included in the study? This
somewhat defeats the purpose of the study in my opinion
3. What are the differences between non-ERAS and ERAS protocol. In the MM section there is
a very detailed description of ERAS, which we have already know from other papers. But we
don't know anything about the previous management
Results
1. Did the patients differ in characterictisc?
2. I do not understand the description of the results after 5 years suggesting the superiority of the
ERAS protocol over the non-ERAS protocol, while no significant differences were demonstrated
in the study.
3. Did the Authors achieve a 100% follow-up rate after 5 years? That would be impressive.
Discussion
1. The goal of the ERAS protocol is early discharge within the first few days. I understand that
previously, patients were not discharged on the first postoperative day not due to their general
condition but because of existing hospital policies. The sentence: "Our study has indicated that
ERAS was associated with 81.82% of discharge at POD 1 compared to nil discharge in the non-
ERAS group." should be revised for clarity.
2. If the abbreviation has been used once, there is no need to explain it again.
3. Are there any limitations of the study?
Conclusion
1. "After 5 years, many patients in the ERAS group showed better prognoses with no
complications. " Why?
2. Use LSG
Title: Comparative Outcomes of ERAS and Conventional Methods in Laparoscopic Sleeve
Gastrectomy: A 5-Year Prospective Cohort Study in Saudi Arabia
Version: 2 Date: 07 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank to the Editors for the opportunity to review this paper. This study compares the
management of patients in the ERAS and non-ERAS protocols. This is a very important topic;
however, I have a few comments on the paper.
Methods
1.  Were all of diabetes mellitus the inclusion criteria? I think the authors analyzed type 2 DM,
please correct
2. What do the Authors mean by 'reoperations' as an exclusion criterion? Does it mean that if a
patient underwent reoperation due to complications, they were not included in the study? This
somewhat defeats the purpose of the study in my opinion
3. What are the differences between non-ERAS and ERAS protocol. In the MM section there is
a very detailed description of ERAS, which we have already know from other papers. But we
don't know anything about the previous management
Results
1. Did the patients differ in characterictisc?
2. I do not understand the description of the results after 5 years suggesting the superiority of the
ERAS protocol over the non-ERAS protocol, while no significant differences were demonstrated
in the study.
3. Did the Authors achieve a 100% follow-up rate after 5 years? That would be impressive.
Discussion
1. The goal of the ERAS protocol is early discharge within the first few days. I understand that
previously, patients were not discharged on the first postoperative day not due to their general
condition but because of existing hospital policies. The sentence: "Our study has indicated that
ERAS was associated with 81.82% of discharge at POD 1 compared to nil discharge in the non-
ERAS group." should be revised for clarity.
2. If the abbreviation has been used once, there is no need to explain it again.
3. Are there any limitations of the study?
Conclusion
1. "After 5 years, many patients in the ERAS group showed better prognoses with no
complications. " Why?
2. Use LSG
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Comparative Outcomes of ERAS and Conventional Methods in Laparoscopic Sleeve
Gastrectomy: A 5-Year Prospective Cohort Study in Saudi Arabia
Version: 2 Date: 07 Feb 2025
Reviewer's report:
Thank to the Editors for the opportunity to review this paper. This study compares the
management of patients in the ERAS and non-ERAS protocols. This is a very important topic;
however, I have a few comments on the paper.
Methods
1.  Were all of diabetes mellitus the inclusion criteria? I think the authors analyzed type 2 DM,
please correct
2. What do the Authors mean by 'reoperations' as an exclusion criterion? Does it mean that if a
patient underwent reoperation due to complications, they were not included in the study? This
somewhat defeats the purpose of the study in my opinion
3. What are the differences between non-ERAS and ERAS protocol. In the MM section there is
a very detailed description of ERAS, which we have already know from other papers. But we
don't know anything about the previous management
Results
1. Did the patients differ in characterictisc?
2. I do not understand the description of the results after 5 years suggesting the superiority of the
ERAS protocol over the non-ERAS protocol, while no significant differences were demonstrated
in the study.
3. Did the Authors achieve a 100% follow-up rate after 5 years? That would be impressive.
Discussion
1. The goal of the ERAS protocol is early discharge within the first few days. I understand that
previously, patients were not discharged on the first postoperative day not due to their general
condition but because of existing hospital policies. The sentence: "Our study has indicated that
ERAS was associated with 81.82% of discharge at POD 1 compared to nil discharge in the non-
ERAS group." should be revised for clarity.
2. If the abbreviation has been used once, there is no need to explain it again.
3. Are there any limitations of the study?
Conclusion
1. "After 5 years, many patients in the ERAS group showed better prognoses with no
complications. " Why?
2. Use LSG
assistant