Title: Endoscopic resection combined with the Cryoballoon focal ablation system in the porcine
normal esophagus: A preclinical study
Version: 2 Date: 14 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors describe the technical feasibility and tissue damage of combination therapy with
ER and CbFAS. This study is generally well written. Some points to consider are below.
1. The data in Table 1 is insufficient. ''Procedure success rate'' of EMR is 2/2 in Table 1, but the
authors performed EMR for 8 lesions (#1,2,3,4,5,6,11,12). 'Procedure success rate'' of CbFAS
is 2/2 in Table 1, but the authors performed CbFAS for 4 lesions (#7,8,9,10). These results are
confusing. The authors should clarify the data in more detail by describing the lesion numbers
in the ''RESULTS'' paragraph.
2. The data in pig C should be described in Table 2. Tissue damage after ER is important
information.
3. The lesion number should be described in Figures 2, 3, 4, or figure legends.
4. Which strategy is more useful, ''EMR+CbFAS'' or ''CbFAS for EMR scar''? Although it may
depend on the clinical situation, a more detailed discussion is desirable.
Title: Endoscopic resection combined with the Cryoballoon focal ablation system in the porcine
normal esophagus: A preclinical study
Version: 2 Date: 14 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors describe the technical feasibility and tissue damage of combination therapy with
ER and CbFAS. This study is generally well written. Some points to consider are below.
1. The data in Table 1 is insufficient. ''Procedure success rate'' of EMR is 2/2 in Table 1, but the
authors performed EMR for 8 lesions (#1,2,3,4,5,6,11,12). 'Procedure success rate'' of CbFAS
is 2/2 in Table 1, but the authors performed CbFAS for 4 lesions (#7,8,9,10). These results are
confusing. The authors should clarify the data in more detail by describing the lesion numbers
in the ''RESULTS'' paragraph.
2. The data in pig C should be described in Table 2. Tissue damage after ER is important
information.
3. The lesion number should be described in Figures 2, 3, 4, or figure legends.
4. Which strategy is more useful, ''EMR+CbFAS'' or ''CbFAS for EMR scar''? Although it may
depend on the clinical situation, a more detailed discussion is desirable.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Endoscopic resection combined with the Cryoballoon focal ablation system in the porcine
normal esophagus: A preclinical study
Version: 2 Date: 14 Feb 2021
Reviewer's report:
The authors describe the technical feasibility and tissue damage of combination therapy with
ER and CbFAS. This study is generally well written. Some points to consider are below.
1. The data in Table 1 is insufficient. ''Procedure success rate'' of EMR is 2/2 in Table 1, but the
authors performed EMR for 8 lesions (#1,2,3,4,5,6,11,12). 'Procedure success rate'' of CbFAS
is 2/2 in Table 1, but the authors performed CbFAS for 4 lesions (#7,8,9,10). These results are
confusing. The authors should clarify the data in more detail by describing the lesion numbers
in the ''RESULTS'' paragraph.
2. The data in pig C should be described in Table 2. Tissue damage after ER is important
information.
3. The lesion number should be described in Figures 2, 3, 4, or figure legends.
4. Which strategy is more useful, ''EMR+CbFAS'' or ''CbFAS for EMR scar''? Although it may
depend on the clinical situation, a more detailed discussion is desirable.
assistant