Title: The comparison of an accessible C-shaped partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (C-PSH)
versus circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy (CSH) in patients with grade IV hemorrhoids: a
retrospective cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 25 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking me to review this paper
It is a well- written paper , clear , targeting outcomes clearly inspite being as cohort study lacking
perspective randomized trial advantages and this is my comment in details :
-Title : clear concise , illustration the type of study , My question what do the authors mean by
the word "accessible " ?
- Abstract : clear
- Keywords : are expressive
- introduction : clear , needs a sentence mentioning more about the standard surgical options for
haemorrhoids , the recent studies comparing the stapler to the routine surgery , then talk about
the study and the study question
- patients and methods :
* consenting process is clear
* The inclusion and exclusion criteria are clear
* the authors are clear about the reference standards for definitions they use in the study like
the diarrhoea or constipation
* surgical procedures and illustration were clear , My question is do the authors use the spatula
in only 1 zone or multiple zones of the Mucosa before Firing the stapler ? Also they do the
vaginal examination for the "married woman " , I think using the term "sexually active women
" may be broader .
* It looks like as mentioned in the discussion section that the excision of the skin tags is routinely
done after stapling , If so why you just do it in the CSH procedure while didn't do in the other
limb , may this be the cause of the pain difference between the 2 group with first bowel motion ?
*Figures and description were clear
- Results :
*tables are clear , data easily extracted
* the management of recurrent piles were very well described
* the consort flow chart is clear
Discussion : is clear , discussed well the result in the view of literature .However , no clear
mention about study limitations.
In my opinion , the paper is for  minor revision  .
Title: The comparison of an accessible C-shaped partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (C-PSH)
versus circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy (CSH) in patients with grade IV hemorrhoids: a
retrospective cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 25 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking me to review this paper
It is a well- written paper , clear , targeting outcomes clearly inspite being as cohort study lacking
perspective randomized trial advantages and this is my comment in details :
-Title : clear concise , illustration the type of study , My question what do the authors mean by
the word "accessible " ?
- Abstract : clear
- Keywords : are expressive
- introduction : clear , needs a sentence mentioning more about the standard surgical options for
haemorrhoids , the recent studies comparing the stapler to the routine surgery , then talk about
the study and the study question
- patients and methods :
* consenting process is clear
* The inclusion and exclusion criteria are clear
* the authors are clear about the reference standards for definitions they use in the study like
the diarrhoea or constipation
* surgical procedures and illustration were clear , My question is do the authors use the spatula
in only 1 zone or multiple zones of the Mucosa before Firing the stapler ? Also they do the
vaginal examination for the "married woman " , I think using the term "sexually active women
" may be broader .
* It looks like as mentioned in the discussion section that the excision of the skin tags is routinely
done after stapling , If so why you just do it in the CSH procedure while didn't do in the other
limb , may this be the cause of the pain difference between the 2 group with first bowel motion ?
*Figures and description were clear
- Results :
*tables are clear , data easily extracted
* the management of recurrent piles were very well described
* the consort flow chart is clear
Discussion : is clear , discussed well the result in the view of literature .However , no clear
mention about study limitations.
In my opinion , the paper is for  minor revision  .
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The comparison of an accessible C-shaped partial stapled hemorrhoidopexy (C-PSH)
versus circular stapled hemorrhoidopexy (CSH) in patients with grade IV hemorrhoids: a
retrospective cohort study
Version: 4 Date: 25 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
Thank you for asking me to review this paper
It is a well- written paper , clear , targeting outcomes clearly inspite being as cohort study lacking
perspective randomized trial advantages and this is my comment in details :
-Title : clear concise , illustration the type of study , My question what do the authors mean by
the word "accessible " ?
- Abstract : clear
- Keywords : are expressive
- introduction : clear , needs a sentence mentioning more about the standard surgical options for
haemorrhoids , the recent studies comparing the stapler to the routine surgery , then talk about
the study and the study question
- patients and methods :
* consenting process is clear
* The inclusion and exclusion criteria are clear
* the authors are clear about the reference standards for definitions they use in the study like
the diarrhoea or constipation
* surgical procedures and illustration were clear , My question is do the authors use the spatula
in only 1 zone or multiple zones of the Mucosa before Firing the stapler ? Also they do the
vaginal examination for the "married woman " , I think using the term "sexually active women
" may be broader .
* It looks like as mentioned in the discussion section that the excision of the skin tags is routinely
done after stapling , If so why you just do it in the CSH procedure while didn't do in the other
limb , may this be the cause of the pain difference between the 2 group with first bowel motion ?
*Figures and description were clear
- Results :
*tables are clear , data easily extracted
* the management of recurrent piles were very well described
* the consort flow chart is clear
Discussion : is clear , discussed well the result in the view of literature .However , no clear
mention about study limitations.
In my opinion , the paper is for  minor revision  .
assistant