Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic colonic resection for splenic flexure cancer: our experience.
Version:9Date:18 February 2015
Reviewer: Christopher M Schalchta
Reviewer's report:
Major comulsory revisions:
The authors have revised their report to address concerns that were expressed
about lack of control group or an approrpiate comparator population. The authors
have addressed this concern by stating as an objective "... to compare our data
to the more recent literature." Yet, this appears not to be done. No summary of
data from the literature is presented for comparison. We are still left with a case
series and comparator. In addition, the authors make reference, in the
discussion, "...there were no significant differences in complication or conversion
rates compared to patients who underwent laparoscopic resection of other colic
segments." What other patients? Were these patients from the authors own
experience? Why make this assertion without presenting any of the data? Not
only is this an obviously unsubstantiated assertion, but an opportunity to address
a major criticism of the first submission has been lost.
The authors have broken down thei data on length of stay as follows:
"Mean length of hospital stay was 8+1 days (range 3-35). For the totally
laparoscopic group the mean length of hospital stay was 4+1 days (range 3-6)
and for the patients undergoing extracorporeal anastomoses was 7+4 days
(range 7-35)."
How is it possible that mean length of stay for the entire series was longer than
the mean length of each of the two subgroups? This undermines my confidence
in all of the data presented in this report.
Minor Essential Revisions:
Table 1 lists sex as "9/14". This is what? Male over female?
Table 1 also lists TNM stage (I.II.III) as 9-9-4. This adds up to 22, not 23.
Table lists 30-day morbidity as 0%. This is not correct. 30-day mortality was 0%,
morbidity was 8.7%. Which were they reporting?
Figure 2 and both Figures 3 add little to this report and could be excluded.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic colonic resection for splenic flexure cancer: our experience.
Version:9Date:18 February 2015
Reviewer: Christopher M Schalchta
Reviewer's report:
Major comulsory revisions:
The authors have revised their report to address concerns that were expressed
about lack of control group or an approrpiate comparator population. The authors
have addressed this concern by stating as an objective "... to compare our data
to the more recent literature." Yet, this appears not to be done. No summary of
data from the literature is presented for comparison. We are still left with a case
series and comparator. In addition, the authors make reference, in the
discussion, "...there were no significant differences in complication or conversion
rates compared to patients who underwent laparoscopic resection of other colic
segments." What other patients? Were these patients from the authors own
experience? Why make this assertion without presenting any of the data? Not
only is this an obviously unsubstantiated assertion, but an opportunity to address
a major criticism of the first submission has been lost.
The authors have broken down thei data on length of stay as follows:
"Mean length of hospital stay was 8+1 days (range 3-35). For the totally
laparoscopic group the mean length of hospital stay was 4+1 days (range 3-6)
and for the patients undergoing extracorporeal anastomoses was 7+4 days
(range 7-35)."
How is it possible that mean length of stay for the entire series was longer than
the mean length of each of the two subgroups? This undermines my confidence
in all of the data presented in this report.
Minor Essential Revisions:
Table 1 lists sex as "9/14". This is what? Male over female?
Table 1 also lists TNM stage (I.II.III) as 9-9-4. This adds up to 22, not 23.
Table lists 30-day morbidity as 0%. This is not correct. 30-day mortality was 0%,
morbidity was 8.7%. Which were they reporting?
Figure 2 and both Figures 3 add little to this report and could be excluded.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Laparoscopic colonic resection for splenic flexure cancer: our experience.
Version:9Date:18 February 2015
Reviewer: Christopher M Schalchta
Reviewer's report:
Major comulsory revisions:
The authors have revised their report to address concerns that were expressed
about lack of control group or an approrpiate comparator population. The authors
have addressed this concern by stating as an objective "... to compare our data
to the more recent literature." Yet, this appears not to be done. No summary of
data from the literature is presented for comparison. We are still left with a case
series and comparator. In addition, the authors make reference, in the
discussion, "...there were no significant differences in complication or conversion
rates compared to patients who underwent laparoscopic resection of other colic
segments." What other patients? Were these patients from the authors own
experience? Why make this assertion without presenting any of the data? Not
only is this an obviously unsubstantiated assertion, but an opportunity to address
a major criticism of the first submission has been lost.
The authors have broken down thei data on length of stay as follows:
"Mean length of hospital stay was 8+1 days (range 3-35). For the totally
laparoscopic group the mean length of hospital stay was 4+1 days (range 3-6)
and for the patients undergoing extracorporeal anastomoses was 7+4 days
(range 7-35)."
How is it possible that mean length of stay for the entire series was longer than
the mean length of each of the two subgroups? This undermines my confidence
in all of the data presented in this report.
Minor Essential Revisions:
Table 1 lists sex as "9/14". This is what? Male over female?
Table 1 also lists TNM stage (I.II.III) as 9-9-4. This adds up to 22, not 23.
Table lists 30-day morbidity as 0%. This is not correct. 30-day mortality was 0%,
morbidity was 8.7%. Which were they reporting?
Figure 2 and both Figures 3 add little to this report and could be excluded.
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: No, the manuscript does not need to be seen by a statistician.
Declaration of competing interests:
I declare that I have no competing interests.
assistant