Title: The longterm impact of post-cholecystectomy major bile duct injury on liver stiffness.
Version: 3 Date: 19 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Tri Hening Rahayatri
Reviewer's report:
1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be written clearly described in this manuscript. Were
the subjects had to be following laparoscopy? And all the subjects should be type E Strassberg
classification?
2. What was the reason of repairing the bile duct injury using hepaticojejunostomy instead of
primary repair?
3. In the result, the author mentioned that 84.2% (n = 16) underwent primary
hepaticojejunostomy while 15.8% (n = 3) underwent revision hepaticojejunostomy. Please
explain whether the 3 subjects had redo revision or not, or explain the different between the
two group.
4.  In 95% (n = 18) patients HJ was performed as a second surgery to the cholecystectomy. What
was the other procedure that caused bile duct injury? If this case control subjected to the patients
post-laparoscopy cholecystectomy, it has to be mentioned clearly, and no other procedure should
be included.
5. Please explain why in the table 1 diabetes encountered in 7 18.4% of control group and 315.8%
in test group (not 100%).
6. In the table 1 please clarify the F0/F1 etc. It should be written Metavir scoring, and below it
could be add the stage as example:
Metavir scoring
F0/F1
F2
F3/F4
Title: The longterm impact of post-cholecystectomy major bile duct injury on liver stiffness.
Version: 3 Date: 19 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Tri Hening Rahayatri
Reviewer's report:
1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be written clearly described in this manuscript. Were
the subjects had to be following laparoscopy? And all the subjects should be type E Strassberg
classification?
2. What was the reason of repairing the bile duct injury using hepaticojejunostomy instead of
primary repair?
3. In the result, the author mentioned that 84.2% (n = 16) underwent primary
hepaticojejunostomy while 15.8% (n = 3) underwent revision hepaticojejunostomy. Please
explain whether the 3 subjects had redo revision or not, or explain the different between the
two group.
4.  In 95% (n = 18) patients HJ was performed as a second surgery to the cholecystectomy. What
was the other procedure that caused bile duct injury? If this case control subjected to the patients
post-laparoscopy cholecystectomy, it has to be mentioned clearly, and no other procedure should
be included.
5. Please explain why in the table 1 diabetes encountered in 7 18.4% of control group and 315.8%
in test group (not 100%).
6. In the table 1 please clarify the F0/F1 etc. It should be written Metavir scoring, and below it
could be add the stage as example:
Metavir scoring
F0/F1
F2
F3/F4
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The longterm impact of post-cholecystectomy major bile duct injury on liver stiffness.
Version: 3 Date: 19 Jul 2024
Reviewer:  Tri Hening Rahayatri
Reviewer's report:
1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be written clearly described in this manuscript. Were
the subjects had to be following laparoscopy? And all the subjects should be type E Strassberg
classification?
2. What was the reason of repairing the bile duct injury using hepaticojejunostomy instead of
primary repair?
3. In the result, the author mentioned that 84.2% (n = 16) underwent primary
hepaticojejunostomy while 15.8% (n = 3) underwent revision hepaticojejunostomy. Please
explain whether the 3 subjects had redo revision or not, or explain the different between the
two group.
4.  In 95% (n = 18) patients HJ was performed as a second surgery to the cholecystectomy. What
was the other procedure that caused bile duct injury? If this case control subjected to the patients
post-laparoscopy cholecystectomy, it has to be mentioned clearly, and no other procedure should
be included.
5. Please explain why in the table 1 diabetes encountered in 7 18.4% of control group and 315.8%
in test group (not 100%).
6. In the table 1 please clarify the F0/F1 etc. It should be written Metavir scoring, and below it
could be add the stage as example:
Metavir scoring
F0/F1
F2
F3/F4
assistant