Title: Vater’s ampullary carcinoma increases the risk of clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective and propensity score-matched
analysis
Version: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, the authors evaluated whether the Vater’s ampullary carcinoma was an independent
risk factor for the development of postoperative complications after pancreticoduodenectomy,
focusing on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. The study is retrospective,
but the authors used the “Propensity Score” method to reduce the differences between the two
compared groups (VAC vs. non-VAC). My suggestions are:
1) I would like to know the pathology of all patients of the non-VAC group. I suggest to report
it in the tables 1 and 3;
2) Considering the author’s choice of using as factors of the propensity score those not distributed
in a homogeneous way between the two groups, regardless their influence in the present study on
the outcome (CR-POPF), I would like to know if the factors of the Clinical Risk Score (Callery et
al., J Am Coll Surg. 2013) not reported (texture, pathology, main duct diameter) and the Clinical
Risk Score value are evenly distributed between the two groups (VAC vs. non-VAC). If they
have not been evaluated in my opinion, it should be done and if they were differently distributed
in the two groups they should be added to the propensity score analysis.
3) I would like to know what is meant by "type of resection" in the "statistical analysis"
paragraph and if you mean the same thing as "surgical method" in the "risk factors for CR-
POPF" paragraph.
Thank you.
Title: Vater’s ampullary carcinoma increases the risk of clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective and propensity score-matched
analysis
Version: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, the authors evaluated whether the Vater’s ampullary carcinoma was an independent
risk factor for the development of postoperative complications after pancreticoduodenectomy,
focusing on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. The study is retrospective,
but the authors used the “Propensity Score” method to reduce the differences between the two
compared groups (VAC vs. non-VAC). My suggestions are:
1) I would like to know the pathology of all patients of the non-VAC group. I suggest to report
it in the tables 1 and 3;
2) Considering the author’s choice of using as factors of the propensity score those not distributed
in a homogeneous way between the two groups, regardless their influence in the present study on
the outcome (CR-POPF), I would like to know if the factors of the Clinical Risk Score (Callery et
al., J Am Coll Surg. 2013) not reported (texture, pathology, main duct diameter) and the Clinical
Risk Score value are evenly distributed between the two groups (VAC vs. non-VAC). If they
have not been evaluated in my opinion, it should be done and if they were differently distributed
in the two groups they should be added to the propensity score analysis.
3) I would like to know what is meant by "type of resection" in the "statistical analysis"
paragraph and if you mean the same thing as "surgical method" in the "risk factors for CR-
POPF" paragraph.
Thank you.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Vater’s ampullary carcinoma increases the risk of clinically relevant postoperative
pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective and propensity score-matched
analysis
Version: 0 Date: 15 Oct 2021
Reviewer's report:
In this paper, the authors evaluated whether the Vater’s ampullary carcinoma was an independent
risk factor for the development of postoperative complications after pancreticoduodenectomy,
focusing on the clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula. The study is retrospective,
but the authors used the “Propensity Score” method to reduce the differences between the two
compared groups (VAC vs. non-VAC). My suggestions are:
1) I would like to know the pathology of all patients of the non-VAC group. I suggest to report
it in the tables 1 and 3;
2) Considering the author’s choice of using as factors of the propensity score those not distributed
in a homogeneous way between the two groups, regardless their influence in the present study on
the outcome (CR-POPF), I would like to know if the factors of the Clinical Risk Score (Callery et
al., J Am Coll Surg. 2013) not reported (texture, pathology, main duct diameter) and the Clinical
Risk Score value are evenly distributed between the two groups (VAC vs. non-VAC). If they
have not been evaluated in my opinion, it should be done and if they were differently distributed
in the two groups they should be added to the propensity score analysis.
3) I would like to know what is meant by "type of resection" in the "statistical analysis"
paragraph and if you mean the same thing as "surgical method" in the "risk factors for CR-
POPF" paragraph.
Thank you.
assistant