Review for 10.1186/s12876-016-0465-9 (2016)

Reviewer ’s report  
Title:  The treatment of anastomotic strictures after Roux -en-Y hepaticojejunostomy: 
"Choledochoscopic  high-frequency needle -knife electrotomy" or ballon dilation + stent 
placement.  Which one is better?  
 
Version:  0 Date:  13 Dec 2015  
 
Reviewer:  Hatanaka Hisashi  
 
Reviewer's report:  
Major comment  
1) In this paper, the patients required 6 months stent placement. It indicates that your method  is 
not useful. If this method does not require long stent placement, it will show the value of 
needle -knife electrotomy.  
  
Minor comments  
1) In page 10, you mentioned the difference of membranous stenosis and tubular stenosis. You 
must show these difference in results section.  
2) You must show the tactics to perform safe needle -knife electrotomy without perforation.  
3) In combined g roup, which method should be performed at the first step? BD? Needle -knife?  
4) Percutaneous metallic stent insertion is contraindication of benign stenosis. Percutaneous 
removal of its stent is impossible.  
 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
No 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors. \ 
No 
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by th e data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
No 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please specify what a spects 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:  
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited  
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 financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat 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 a pplied for patents relating to the content 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 answe r 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 that I have no competing interests.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand t hat 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 mad e 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, whi ch will not be published.  
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal