Title: Effect of incision location and type of fistula on postoperative urinary retention after
radical surgery for anal fistula: A retrospective analysis
Version: 2 Date: 29 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Tanan Bejrananda
Reviewer's report:
This study on the effect of incision location and type of fistula on postoperative urinary
retention after radical surgery for anal fistula provides valuable insights into the risk factors and
mechanisms associated with this common complication. Here are some review and improvement
points for each section:
1. **Introduction:**
- Review: The introduction effectively sets the context by defining postoperative urinary
retention (POUR) and anal fistula while highlighting the importance of understanding the risk
factors for POUR.
- Improvement: To enhance clarity, consider providing a brief overview of the current standard
practices in radical surgery for anal fistula and existing knowledge on POUR in proctology
surgery.
2. **Materials and Methods:**
- Review: The study design and patient selection criteria are clearly described, and the surgical
procedures are well-explained.
- Improvement: It would be helpful to provide more details on the specific methods used for
data analysis and statistical tests applied to identify risk factors for POUR.
3. **Results:**
- Review: The results section presents comprehensive data on patient characteristics, differences
between POUR and non-POUR groups, and the outcomes of univariate and multivariate
analyses.
- Improvement: Consider organizing the results in a more structured manner, perhaps by
separating findings related to patient characteristics, surgical approaches, and outcomes to
enhance readability.
4. **Discussion:**
- Review: The discussion effectively interprets the study findings in the context of existing
literature, identifies possible mechanisms underlying POUR, and proposes management
strategies based on the identified risk factors.
- Improvement: While the discussion covers a wide range of factors, consider providing more
emphasis on the clinical implications of the findings and practical recommendations for surgeons
to minimize the risk of POUR.
5. **Strengths and Limitations:**
- Review: The strengths and limitations of the study are well-addressed, acknowledging factors
such as study design, data collection methods, and potential biases.
- Improvement: To provide a more balanced assessment, consider discussing potential sources
of bias in more detail and suggesting avenues for future research to address these limitations.
6. **Conclusion:**
- Review: The conclusion succinctly summarizes the key findings and implications for clinical
practice.
- Improvement: Consider reinforcing the significance of the study findings and outlining specific
action points for clinicians to integrate into their practice to reduce the incidence of POUR.
Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the risk factors for POUR after radical
surgery for anal fistula. Enhancing the clarity of presentation and providing more focused
recommendations for clinical practice could further strengthen the impact of the study.
Title: Effect of incision location and type of fistula on postoperative urinary retention after
radical surgery for anal fistula: A retrospective analysis
Version: 2 Date: 29 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Tanan Bejrananda
Reviewer's report:
This study on the effect of incision location and type of fistula on postoperative urinary
retention after radical surgery for anal fistula provides valuable insights into the risk factors and
mechanisms associated with this common complication. Here are some review and improvement
points for each section:
1. **Introduction:**
- Review: The introduction effectively sets the context by defining postoperative urinary
retention (POUR) and anal fistula while highlighting the importance of understanding the risk
factors for POUR.
- Improvement: To enhance clarity, consider providing a brief overview of the current standard
practices in radical surgery for anal fistula and existing knowledge on POUR in proctology
surgery.
2. **Materials and Methods:**
- Review: The study design and patient selection criteria are clearly described, and the surgical
procedures are well-explained.
- Improvement: It would be helpful to provide more details on the specific methods used for
data analysis and statistical tests applied to identify risk factors for POUR.
3. **Results:**
- Review: The results section presents comprehensive data on patient characteristics, differences
between POUR and non-POUR groups, and the outcomes of univariate and multivariate
analyses.
- Improvement: Consider organizing the results in a more structured manner, perhaps by
separating findings related to patient characteristics, surgical approaches, and outcomes to
enhance readability.
4. **Discussion:**
- Review: The discussion effectively interprets the study findings in the context of existing
literature, identifies possible mechanisms underlying POUR, and proposes management
strategies based on the identified risk factors.
- Improvement: While the discussion covers a wide range of factors, consider providing more
emphasis on the clinical implications of the findings and practical recommendations for surgeons
to minimize the risk of POUR.
5. **Strengths and Limitations:**
- Review: The strengths and limitations of the study are well-addressed, acknowledging factors
such as study design, data collection methods, and potential biases.
- Improvement: To provide a more balanced assessment, consider discussing potential sources
of bias in more detail and suggesting avenues for future research to address these limitations.
6. **Conclusion:**
- Review: The conclusion succinctly summarizes the key findings and implications for clinical
practice.
- Improvement: Consider reinforcing the significance of the study findings and outlining specific
action points for clinicians to integrate into their practice to reduce the incidence of POUR.
Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the risk factors for POUR after radical
surgery for anal fistula. Enhancing the clarity of presentation and providing more focused
recommendations for clinical practice could further strengthen the impact of the study.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Effect of incision location and type of fistula on postoperative urinary retention after
radical surgery for anal fistula: A retrospective analysis
Version: 2 Date: 29 Apr 2024
Reviewer:  Tanan Bejrananda
Reviewer's report:
This study on the effect of incision location and type of fistula on postoperative urinary
retention after radical surgery for anal fistula provides valuable insights into the risk factors and
mechanisms associated with this common complication. Here are some review and improvement
points for each section:
1. **Introduction:**
- Review: The introduction effectively sets the context by defining postoperative urinary
retention (POUR) and anal fistula while highlighting the importance of understanding the risk
factors for POUR.
- Improvement: To enhance clarity, consider providing a brief overview of the current standard
practices in radical surgery for anal fistula and existing knowledge on POUR in proctology
surgery.
2. **Materials and Methods:**
- Review: The study design and patient selection criteria are clearly described, and the surgical
procedures are well-explained.
- Improvement: It would be helpful to provide more details on the specific methods used for
data analysis and statistical tests applied to identify risk factors for POUR.
3. **Results:**
- Review: The results section presents comprehensive data on patient characteristics, differences
between POUR and non-POUR groups, and the outcomes of univariate and multivariate
analyses.
- Improvement: Consider organizing the results in a more structured manner, perhaps by
separating findings related to patient characteristics, surgical approaches, and outcomes to
enhance readability.
4. **Discussion:**
- Review: The discussion effectively interprets the study findings in the context of existing
literature, identifies possible mechanisms underlying POUR, and proposes management
strategies based on the identified risk factors.
- Improvement: While the discussion covers a wide range of factors, consider providing more
emphasis on the clinical implications of the findings and practical recommendations for surgeons
to minimize the risk of POUR.
5. **Strengths and Limitations:**
- Review: The strengths and limitations of the study are well-addressed, acknowledging factors
such as study design, data collection methods, and potential biases.
- Improvement: To provide a more balanced assessment, consider discussing potential sources
of bias in more detail and suggesting avenues for future research to address these limitations.
6. **Conclusion:**
- Review: The conclusion succinctly summarizes the key findings and implications for clinical
practice.
- Improvement: Consider reinforcing the significance of the study findings and outlining specific
action points for clinicians to integrate into their practice to reduce the incidence of POUR.
Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the risk factors for POUR after radical
surgery for anal fistula. Enhancing the clarity of presentation and providing more focused
recommendations for clinical practice could further strengthen the impact of the study.
assistant