Title: Endovascular treatment of symptomatic hepatic venous outflow obstruction post major
liver resection
Version: 5 Date: 22 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
In the Methods of the Abstract section, the authors said “Primary and primary assisted hepatic
venous patency times were calculated”, where the word “times” should be modified as “time”.
Similar errors can be seen in the entire text.
In the Material and methods section, the description of which type of patient needs endovascular
treatment is inconsistent with the Technical success of Results section. Specifically, in the
Procedural technique of the Material and methods section, the authors said “Pressure gradients
greater than 3 mmHg were considered to require therapy”, but in the Technical success of Results
section, the authors said “Two Interventions were considered as technically successful, even
though no endovascular treatment was necessary since there was a lack of a significant pressure
gradient in these two cases (<5mmHg)”. It should be noted that patient 5 received endovascular
treatment despite the value of HPVG less than 3 (patient 5 HVPG 2mmHg) in Table 3.
The description of Table 1 is inconsistent with Table 2. For example, in Table 1, the second
intervention for patient 1 is “stent placement”, but in Table 2, the second intervention for patient
1 included both “balloon angioplasty” and “stent placement”. Similar errors can be seen patient
5, patient 6, and patient 12.
In the Discussion section, the authors said “In this patient population, the majority of primary
interventions were POBA”, the authors should provide the full name of “POBA” when it appears
firstly.
Title: Endovascular treatment of symptomatic hepatic venous outflow obstruction post major
liver resection
Version: 5 Date: 22 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
In the Methods of the Abstract section, the authors said “Primary and primary assisted hepatic
venous patency times were calculated”, where the word “times” should be modified as “time”.
Similar errors can be seen in the entire text.
In the Material and methods section, the description of which type of patient needs endovascular
treatment is inconsistent with the Technical success of Results section. Specifically, in the
Procedural technique of the Material and methods section, the authors said “Pressure gradients
greater than 3 mmHg were considered to require therapy”, but in the Technical success of Results
section, the authors said “Two Interventions were considered as technically successful, even
though no endovascular treatment was necessary since there was a lack of a significant pressure
gradient in these two cases (<5mmHg)”. It should be noted that patient 5 received endovascular
treatment despite the value of HPVG less than 3 (patient 5 HVPG 2mmHg) in Table 3.
The description of Table 1 is inconsistent with Table 2. For example, in Table 1, the second
intervention for patient 1 is “stent placement”, but in Table 2, the second intervention for patient
1 included both “balloon angioplasty” and “stent placement”. Similar errors can be seen patient
5, patient 6, and patient 12.
In the Discussion section, the authors said “In this patient population, the majority of primary
interventions were POBA”, the authors should provide the full name of “POBA” when it appears
firstly.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Endovascular treatment of symptomatic hepatic venous outflow obstruction post major
liver resection
Version: 5 Date: 22 Jun 2023
Reviewer's report:
In the Methods of the Abstract section, the authors said “Primary and primary assisted hepatic
venous patency times were calculated”, where the word “times” should be modified as “time”.
Similar errors can be seen in the entire text.
In the Material and methods section, the description of which type of patient needs endovascular
treatment is inconsistent with the Technical success of Results section. Specifically, in the
Procedural technique of the Material and methods section, the authors said “Pressure gradients
greater than 3 mmHg were considered to require therapy”, but in the Technical success of Results
section, the authors said “Two Interventions were considered as technically successful, even
though no endovascular treatment was necessary since there was a lack of a significant pressure
gradient in these two cases (<5mmHg)”. It should be noted that patient 5 received endovascular
treatment despite the value of HPVG less than 3 (patient 5 HVPG 2mmHg) in Table 3.
The description of Table 1 is inconsistent with Table 2. For example, in Table 1, the second
intervention for patient 1 is “stent placement”, but in Table 2, the second intervention for patient
1 included both “balloon angioplasty” and “stent placement”. Similar errors can be seen patient
5, patient 6, and patient 12.
In the Discussion section, the authors said “In this patient population, the majority of primary
interventions were POBA”, the authors should provide the full name of “POBA” when it appears
firstly.
assistant