Reviewer's report 
 Colorectal tumors with complete obstruction - Endoscopic recovery of passage replacing emergency Title: 
surgery? A report of two cases 
 3  18 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 ARRIGO ARRIGONI Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper deals with a still existing problem (i.e. acute colorectal ostruction by cancer) and thus maintains an interest. ). The use of increasing diameter scopes along guide wires reported in the paper has some interest and a favourable results has been obtained at a low cost. Recent and larger series are however 
available, mainly focused on a combined use of self exandable metallic stents (and must be cited). 
Case description is poor. As the paper essentially concerns a technique, a more extended report is required. In detail: 1) clinical conditions at entry that excluded an emergency surgical option, 2) localization 
of the residual lumen, 3) use of fluoroscopy? use of water soluble contrast media? 4) follow up (in particular 
in patient 1, who didn’t underwent surgery. Survival? Obstruction recurrence? Retreatment? 
Le final part of introduction extensively anticipates results and conclusions. It may be moved into the discussion section and the sentence in Introduction could be reduced for instance to “ We report two patients with symptoms of complete large bowel obstruction who underwent a succefull endoscopic 
recanalization” . 
Thought the text is understandable, some terms and sentences sound unusual or inappopriate. A revision 
of the paper by an English-speaking reader could be useful. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
-Introduction, line 13-14, I would replace the final part of the sentenc instead of “that may..” “and this policy 
may have avoided subsequent colon obstruction”. 
Abstract: line 7, “gastrscope”, replace with gastroscope. Line 12: clarify the significance of “chemotherapy 
instantly” 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below 
Reviewer's report 
 Colorectal tumors with complete obstruction - Endoscopic recovery of passage replacing emergency Title: 
surgery? A report of two cases 
 3  18 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 ARRIGO ARRIGONI Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper deals with a still existing problem (i.e. acute colorectal ostruction by cancer) and thus maintains an interest. ). The use of increasing diameter scopes along guide wires reported in the paper has some interest and a favourable results has been obtained at a low cost. Recent and larger series are however 
available, mainly focused on a combined use of self exandable metallic stents (and must be cited). 
Case description is poor. As the paper essentially concerns a technique, a more extended report is required. In detail: 1) clinical conditions at entry that excluded an emergency surgical option, 2) localization 
of the residual lumen, 3) use of fluoroscopy? use of water soluble contrast media? 4) follow up (in particular 
in patient 1, who didn’t underwent surgery. Survival? Obstruction recurrence? Retreatment? 
Le final part of introduction extensively anticipates results and conclusions. It may be moved into the discussion section and the sentence in Introduction could be reduced for instance to “ We report two patients with symptoms of complete large bowel obstruction who underwent a succefull endoscopic 
recanalization” . 
Thought the text is understandable, some terms and sentences sound unusual or inappopriate. A revision 
of the paper by an English-speaking reader could be useful. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
-Introduction, line 13-14, I would replace the final part of the sentenc instead of “that may..” “and this policy 
may have avoided subsequent colon obstruction”. 
Abstract: line 7, “gastrscope”, replace with gastroscope. Line 12: clarify the significance of “chemotherapy 
instantly” 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Colorectal tumors with complete obstruction - Endoscopic recovery of passage replacing emergency Title: 
surgery? A report of two cases 
 3  18 November 2006 Version: Date: 
 ARRIGO ARRIGONI Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
The paper deals with a still existing problem (i.e. acute colorectal ostruction by cancer) and thus maintains an interest. ). The use of increasing diameter scopes along guide wires reported in the paper has some interest and a favourable results has been obtained at a low cost. Recent and larger series are however 
available, mainly focused on a combined use of self exandable metallic stents (and must be cited). 
Case description is poor. As the paper essentially concerns a technique, a more extended report is required. In detail: 1) clinical conditions at entry that excluded an emergency surgical option, 2) localization 
of the residual lumen, 3) use of fluoroscopy? use of water soluble contrast media? 4) follow up (in particular 
in patient 1, who didn’t underwent surgery. Survival? Obstruction recurrence? Retreatment? 
Le final part of introduction extensively anticipates results and conclusions. It may be moved into the discussion section and the sentence in Introduction could be reduced for instance to “ We report two patients with symptoms of complete large bowel obstruction who underwent a succefull endoscopic 
recanalization” . 
Thought the text is understandable, some terms and sentences sound unusual or inappopriate. A revision 
of the paper by an English-speaking reader could be useful. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 
-Introduction, line 13-14, I would replace the final part of the sentenc instead of “that may..” “and this policy 
may have avoided subsequent colon obstruction”. 
Abstract: line 7, “gastrscope”, replace with gastroscope. Line 12: clarify the significance of “chemotherapy 
instantly” 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author 
can be trusted to correct) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Accept after minor essential revisions What next?: 
 An article whose findings are important to those with closely related research interests Level of interest: 
 Needs some language corrections before being published Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests' below 
assistant