Title: Impact of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on postoperative recovery in patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma resection
Version: 6 Date: 10 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Yukiyasu Okamura
Reviewer's report:
Although the revision manuscript has been corrected, it seems to me that several points were
not revised correctly.
Major points
1. As the previous referee 2 suggested, I also do not think that the paper includes the high impact
from the aspect of clinical utility. Although the authors excluded the patients older than 80 years
old and the patients who underwent hepatectomy within 7 weeks after the resolution of COVID
symptoms, the readers rather interest in the outcomes for such patients.
2. Although the previous referee 1 suggested in comment 1, it seems that NAFLD is not changed
into SLD in the manuscript.
Minor points
1. I think Reference 19 and 20 are inappropriately quoted. There are more appropriate references
instead.
Ref 19: Nagtegaal ID, et al. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system.
Histopathology. 2020.
Ref 20: Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical com -plications: a
new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 pa-tients and results of a survey. Ann Surg.
2004;240(2):205–13
2. As a whole, all the tables are hard to see. The authors should make it easier to see.
3. Table 3 starts with lowercase letters. Correct to capital letters.
4. Reference 42 is duplicated. Revise the correct number.
Title: Impact of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on postoperative recovery in patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma resection
Version: 6 Date: 10 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Yukiyasu Okamura
Reviewer's report:
Although the revision manuscript has been corrected, it seems to me that several points were
not revised correctly.
Major points
1. As the previous referee 2 suggested, I also do not think that the paper includes the high impact
from the aspect of clinical utility. Although the authors excluded the patients older than 80 years
old and the patients who underwent hepatectomy within 7 weeks after the resolution of COVID
symptoms, the readers rather interest in the outcomes for such patients.
2. Although the previous referee 1 suggested in comment 1, it seems that NAFLD is not changed
into SLD in the manuscript.
Minor points
1. I think Reference 19 and 20 are inappropriately quoted. There are more appropriate references
instead.
Ref 19: Nagtegaal ID, et al. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system.
Histopathology. 2020.
Ref 20: Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical com -plications: a
new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 pa-tients and results of a survey. Ann Surg.
2004;240(2):205–13
2. As a whole, all the tables are hard to see. The authors should make it easier to see.
3. Table 3 starts with lowercase letters. Correct to capital letters.
4. Reference 42 is duplicated. Revise the correct number.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Impact of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on postoperative recovery in patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma resection
Version: 6 Date: 10 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Yukiyasu Okamura
Reviewer's report:
Although the revision manuscript has been corrected, it seems to me that several points were
not revised correctly.
Major points
1. As the previous referee 2 suggested, I also do not think that the paper includes the high impact
from the aspect of clinical utility. Although the authors excluded the patients older than 80 years
old and the patients who underwent hepatectomy within 7 weeks after the resolution of COVID
symptoms, the readers rather interest in the outcomes for such patients.
2. Although the previous referee 1 suggested in comment 1, it seems that NAFLD is not changed
into SLD in the manuscript.
Minor points
1. I think Reference 19 and 20 are inappropriately quoted. There are more appropriate references
instead.
Ref 19: Nagtegaal ID, et al. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system.
Histopathology. 2020.
Ref 20: Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical com -plications: a
new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 pa-tients and results of a survey. Ann Surg.
2004;240(2):205–13
2. As a whole, all the tables are hard to see. The authors should make it easier to see.
3. Table 3 starts with lowercase letters. Correct to capital letters.
4. Reference 42 is duplicated. Revise the correct number.
assistant