Title: A safe and simple exposure and Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic anatomical liver
resection of segment 7
Version: 4 Date: 21 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have investigated the use of a novel device to facilitate
laparoscopic liver resection. The main strength is the well defined patient population, and follow
up.
Although the article is interesting and important, the writing style could be improved.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Process of using the device is not clear. Need to be explained better.
Statistical analysis - What was done needs to be described briefly.
The style of writing needs improvement.
* ""To better rotating right liver""
* ""full course of postoperative hepatic function protection"" - what is this?
* hematischesis - what's this?
Added comments:
Objective – Objective is clear
Methodology – This is a retrospective review, so methodology is appropriate. Their description
on their device use is unclear, and needs to be revised.
sample size – Retrospective review, so sample size is not a concern.
Discussion – Writing style needs improvement.
Other – Few specific examples of language issues were highlighted, but the overall writing needs
to be improved.
Title: A safe and simple exposure and Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic anatomical liver
resection of segment 7
Version: 4 Date: 21 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have investigated the use of a novel device to facilitate
laparoscopic liver resection. The main strength is the well defined patient population, and follow
up.
Although the article is interesting and important, the writing style could be improved.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Process of using the device is not clear. Need to be explained better.
Statistical analysis - What was done needs to be described briefly.
The style of writing needs improvement.
* ""To better rotating right liver""
* ""full course of postoperative hepatic function protection"" - what is this?
* hematischesis - what's this?
Added comments:
Objective – Objective is clear
Methodology – This is a retrospective review, so methodology is appropriate. Their description
on their device use is unclear, and needs to be revised.
sample size – Retrospective review, so sample size is not a concern.
Discussion – Writing style needs improvement.
Other – Few specific examples of language issues were highlighted, but the overall writing needs
to be improved.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: A safe and simple exposure and Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic anatomical liver
resection of segment 7
Version: 4 Date: 21 Sep 2023
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses a testable research
question(s) (brief or other article types: is there a clear objective)?
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with technical rigor to allow
confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Is the current version of this work technically
sound? If not, can revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have investigated the use of a novel device to facilitate
laparoscopic liver resection. The main strength is the well defined patient population, and follow
up.
Although the article is interesting and important, the writing style could be improved.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Process of using the device is not clear. Need to be explained better.
Statistical analysis - What was done needs to be described briefly.
The style of writing needs improvement.
* ""To better rotating right liver""
* ""full course of postoperative hepatic function protection"" - what is this?
* hematischesis - what's this?
Added comments:
Objective – Objective is clear
Methodology – This is a retrospective review, so methodology is appropriate. Their description
on their device use is unclear, and needs to be revised.
sample size – Retrospective review, so sample size is not a concern.
Discussion – Writing style needs improvement.
Other – Few specific examples of language issues were highlighted, but the overall writing needs
to be improved.
assistant