Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01726-4 (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Dorsal approach with Glissonian approach for laparoscopic right anatomic
liver resections
Version: 
3 
Date: 
27 Jan 2021
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one
or several testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a
clear objective?)
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols)
appropriate for the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient
technical rigor to allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your
concerns sufficiently for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound
contribution? If not, can further revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: The manuscript needs work.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
1. Abstract, Methods should include a description of the design and not a full
description of the surgical technique. 
2. Abstract, background, please state the objective.
3. Abstract, conclusion, the statement has to be more powerful.
4. Abstract, first sentence, the opinion that laparoscopic right hepatectomy has
become a routine procedure is not correct. It is still an advanced procedure
performed only in select centers.
5. The title would be better as : Dorsal approach with Glissonian approach for
laparoscopic right anatomic liver resections 
6. In introduction, please define the "dorsal approach". 
7. In Methods, please state if these cases were done through a dorsal approach,
or if the authors are reporting/comparing different approaches. 
8. The discussion is too long.
9. Overall, the authors need to explain their objective first. What message do
they want to relay? Although they have done a number of challenging cases,
since their objective is not clarified, I have difficulty understanding what the
message of the paper is. 
I think that the authors show shorten the manuscript by
highlighting that they are describing their experience with the dorsal approach
for laparoscopic resection of right hepatic tumors. They should in the
background state what the issue with the anterior approach is and then what
benefits they anticipated with their technique. Then in Methods, they should
clearly describe what is unique about their technique. In Discussion, they should
summarize the techniques used for the right lobe lesions (i.e. robotic,
lateral/supine position, abdominal vs transthoracic trocars, hand assist vs lap and
anterior versus dorsal approach) and center their discussion around these topics.
In the current format, it was tough for me to understand why the paper was
written and what the authors accomplished with their analysis. 
10. What recommendations do they have for surgeons who what to practice their
technique?
11. The duration of Pringle maneuvers seems to be too extensive
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS: 
The figures are also difficult to follow. 
I recommend them to include some
describing the subtleties of the posterior approach."
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
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 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 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.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square.
Reviewers with declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for
these reviews. This reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online
under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to Research Square
and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 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
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial
office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note
you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and
confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we
will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes