24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

xiaoze2003

铜虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 26.5
散金: 20
帖子: 118
在线: 33.4小时
虫号: 2274273
注册: 2013-02-05
性别: GG
专业: 尿动力学

[求助] reviewer在对文章进行详细评述之前，说了一段话，在response中要回应吗？已有1人参与

reviewer在对文章进行详细评述之前，说了一段评述性意见，在response中要回应吗？

原文如下：
Before delving into the paper in detail, I think a few broad concepts need to be revised. First, it should be made clearer that this procedure is only being offered in male patients. Second, my definitions and your definitions of the terms hernia, hydrocele, and patent processus vaginalis seem to be different. You need to clearly define these entities. In my practice, I repair all male pediatric inguinal hernias via a similar laparoscopic approach, but I offer the traditional high-ligation/hydrocelectomy for non-communicating hydroceles that require intervention. It seems as though this paper defines communicating hydroceles and inguinal hernias as the same. That should be better clarified, as it is confusing, and these changes should be reflected throughout the abstract and manuscript. Third, in my practice I do not separate these cases into complicated vs non-complicated based on the number of peritoneal folds. Additionally, throughout the manuscript there is no
mention of creating scar to the anterior ring, a concept I find critical in the durability of minimally invasive approaches. And lastly, throughout the abstract and manuscript there is reference to the "standard laparoscopic approach". As of yet, a standard laparoscopic approach does not exist, and it is instead data such as yours that will help us further define the optimal minimally invasive approach to inguinal hernia repair in pediatric males.

回复此楼