Title: Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision plus One-Port Laparoscopic
Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study with Conventional
Laparoscopic Surgery
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. Regarding patients selection for SILS+1 or CLS, how was it decided?  Please provide the
percentage or number of cases in which SILS+1 and CLS were performed annually at your
institution.
2. Regarding follow-up, please describe indications and medications for postoperative adjuvant
chemotherapy.
3. In the discussion, it is stated that “Whereas, in SILS + 1, the procedure was entirely
coordinated and conducted by the highly experienced primary surgeon, thus avoiding the
dangerous situations caused by unskilled assistants”. I have a concern that in CLS, an
experienced surgeon did not perform the operation but participated as an assistant, and that the
operation was performed by a resident or junior surgeon, resulting in a longer operation time
and a higher estimated blood loss than in SILS+1?
4. In the last paragraph, it is stated that “Thus, well-designed multi-center large-scale prospective
randomized controlled trials are still needed to further establish the benefits of SILS + 1 in
colorectal cancer.” This sentence is ideal, but realistically, in the era of robotic surgery, it would
be difficult to conduct such a randomized controlled trial comparing SILS+1 and CLS. Wouldn't
it be better to have high-quality clinical trials that are feasible, rather than stating ideals that are
difficult to achieve?
Title: Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision plus One-Port Laparoscopic
Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study with Conventional
Laparoscopic Surgery
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. Regarding patients selection for SILS+1 or CLS, how was it decided?  Please provide the
percentage or number of cases in which SILS+1 and CLS were performed annually at your
institution.
2. Regarding follow-up, please describe indications and medications for postoperative adjuvant
chemotherapy.
3. In the discussion, it is stated that “Whereas, in SILS + 1, the procedure was entirely
coordinated and conducted by the highly experienced primary surgeon, thus avoiding the
dangerous situations caused by unskilled assistants”. I have a concern that in CLS, an
experienced surgeon did not perform the operation but participated as an assistant, and that the
operation was performed by a resident or junior surgeon, resulting in a longer operation time
and a higher estimated blood loss than in SILS+1?
4. In the last paragraph, it is stated that “Thus, well-designed multi-center large-scale prospective
randomized controlled trials are still needed to further establish the benefits of SILS + 1 in
colorectal cancer.” This sentence is ideal, but realistically, in the era of robotic surgery, it would
be difficult to conduct such a randomized controlled trial comparing SILS+1 and CLS. Wouldn't
it be better to have high-quality clinical trials that are feasible, rather than stating ideals that are
difficult to achieve?
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Incision plus One-Port Laparoscopic
Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study with Conventional
Laparoscopic Surgery
Version: 0 Date: 25 Jul 2023
Reviewer's report:
1. Regarding patients selection for SILS+1 or CLS, how was it decided?  Please provide the
percentage or number of cases in which SILS+1 and CLS were performed annually at your
institution.
2. Regarding follow-up, please describe indications and medications for postoperative adjuvant
chemotherapy.
3. In the discussion, it is stated that “Whereas, in SILS + 1, the procedure was entirely
coordinated and conducted by the highly experienced primary surgeon, thus avoiding the
dangerous situations caused by unskilled assistants”. I have a concern that in CLS, an
experienced surgeon did not perform the operation but participated as an assistant, and that the
operation was performed by a resident or junior surgeon, resulting in a longer operation time
and a higher estimated blood loss than in SILS+1?
4. In the last paragraph, it is stated that “Thus, well-designed multi-center large-scale prospective
randomized controlled trials are still needed to further establish the benefits of SILS + 1 in
colorectal cancer.” This sentence is ideal, but realistically, in the era of robotic surgery, it would
be difficult to conduct such a randomized controlled trial comparing SILS+1 and CLS. Wouldn't
it be better to have high-quality clinical trials that are feasible, rather than stating ideals that are
difficult to achieve?
assistant