Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Feasibility of portal or superior mesenteric vein resection and reconstruction by allogeneic 
vein for pancreatic head cancer —a case -control study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 28 Dec 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Neil Merrett  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
A case matched comparison of allograft replacement of portal vein to standard portal vein 
excision in whipples resection for pancreatic cancer. A well written analysis and study.  
 
 
Several issues however  
 
1. The auth ors state that doppler analysis was performed post operatively however the results are 
not mentioned in either texts or tables. As portal vein thronbosis after resection is a significant 
complication, this should be noted with comparative analysis of rates  of thrombosis between the 
2 procedures.  
 
2. The authors compare end to end allograft reconstruction with a variety of portal vein resection 
including side bites, patch and end to end replacement. Although the analysis as performed is 
valid, it would be more informative if analysis of end to end p ortal vein reconstruction was 
compared to allograft reconstruction  
 
t 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an addi tional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the cont ent of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below . If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare i have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is  accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will n ot be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Feasibility of portal or superior mesenteric vein resection and reconstruction by allogeneic 
vein for pancreatic head cancer —a case -control study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 28 Dec 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Neil Merrett  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
A case matched comparison of allograft replacement of portal vein to standard portal vein 
excision in whipples resection for pancreatic cancer. A well written analysis and study.  
 
 
Several issues however  
 
1. The auth ors state that doppler analysis was performed post operatively however the results are 
not mentioned in either texts or tables. As portal vein thronbosis after resection is a significant 
complication, this should be noted with comparative analysis of rates  of thrombosis between the 
2 procedures.  
 
2. The authors compare end to end allograft reconstruction with a variety of portal vein resection 
including side bites, patch and end to end replacement. Although the analysis as performed is 
valid, it would be more informative if analysis of end to end p ortal vein reconstruction was 
compared to allograft reconstruction  
 
t 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an addi tional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the cont ent of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below . If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare i have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is  accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will n ot be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title:  Feasibility of portal or superior mesenteric vein resection and reconstruction by allogeneic 
vein for pancreatic head cancer —a case -control study  
 
Version: 0 Date: 28 Dec 2017 
 
Reviewer:  Neil Merrett  
 
Reviewer’s report:  
 
A case matched comparison of allograft replacement of portal vein to standard portal vein 
excision in whipples resection for pancreatic cancer. A well written analysis and study.  
 
 
Several issues however  
 
1. The auth ors state that doppler analysis was performed post operatively however the results are 
not mentioned in either texts or tables. As portal vein thronbosis after resection is a significant 
complication, this should be noted with comparative analysis of rates  of thrombosis between the 
2 procedures.  
 
2. The authors compare end to end allograft reconstruction with a variety of portal vein resection 
including side bites, patch and end to end replacement. Although the analysis as performed is 
valid, it would be more informative if analysis of end to end p ortal vein reconstruction was 
compared to allograft reconstruction  
 
t 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an addi tional statistical review is recommended, please specify what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
I am able to assess the statistics  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:  
 
Acceptable  
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the cont ent of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' 
below . If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I declare i have no competing interests  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is  accepted for publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons 
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments 
to the editors, which will n ot be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant