Review for 10.1186/s12876-018-0903-y (2018)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Stapleless laparoscopic left Lateral secti onectom y for hepatocellular carcinoma: 
reappraisal of the Louisville sta tement by a young liver surgeon  
 
Version: 2 Date: 17 Jun 2018  
 
Reviewer: Paolo Magistri  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
Autho rs reported their initial experience with laparoscopic left lateral liver resection (LLS). In 
detail, the manuscript describes the results of a young surgeon at the beginning of its learning 
curve for laparoscopic liver surgery after completing his residen cy and a training in HPB surgery 
and minor laparoscopic procedures. Comparing open and laparoscopic LLS (75 vs. 18), authors 
found that laparoscopic approach by a young surgeon had the same outcomes compared to open 
resections performed by experienced coll eagues in terms of oncological accuracy, post -operative 
outcomes and survival. The topic is well known and the population of the study too small and 
biased to draw accurate conclusions, however I think that the "generational conflict" may be the 
most inter esting aspect of this study. It should be emphasized in the discussion describing the 
training for young surgeons in Taiwan and the perspectives in their Country for minimally 
invasive surgery. From a technical perspective, authors should clarify the metho ds to decide 
whether or not they perform an inflow control and Pringle maneuver: as a matter of fact, inflow 
control was less frequent in the LH group but significantly longer compared to OH group. Was it 
just an emergency procedure or is it planned?  
 
 
 
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 specif y which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
No 
 
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 manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quali ty 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 rec eived reimbursements, f ees, 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 that may in any wa y 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 reimbu rsements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied 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 relatio n to this paper?  
 
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have  no competing interest s' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
I have no competing interests to disclose  
 
I agree to the open peer review po licy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
respons es. 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 confid ential comments 
to the editor s, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal