Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Laparoscopic cervico-isthmic anastomosis for old traumatic disjunction
between the cervix and the uterine corpus: a case report and literature review.
Version: 
1 
Date: 
30 Nov 2022
Reviewer: 
Filippo Alberto Ferrari
Reviewer's report:
Dear Respectable Editor
I am grateful to give me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled
"Laparoscopic cervico-isthmic anastomosis for old traumatic disjunction
between the cervix and the uterine corpus: a case report and literature review".
The authors presented a complete abstract and informative title. I appreciated the
novelty given to scientific literature for a such rare gynecological disease. The
case report is precisely reported and all the needed fundamental data are present
but I suggest to provide the duration of the surgical procedure and blood losses.
The authors performed a literature search of the most notable available papers. In
my opinion, the Table summarizes adequately the literature evidence though
misses of the description of the used surgical technique in the "surgery" column.
Quality of figure 1 is poor, please provide a high quality version. Discussion is
well conducted but to improve the reading fluency I suggest to not use a
numbered list. At line 139, I advice to clarify the connection with pelvic and
abdominal endometriosis and to add the appropriate reference. I advice to add
references at line 164, 178, 185, 187. At line 149-151 the authors talks about a
specific time for surgery but, in consideration of the rarity of the disease, it is not
clear if is a personal position or if is supported by literature evidence. The
authors adviced the use of hormonal therapy after surgery to facilitate the
endometrial regeneration. As aforementioned, please add reference in favor of
endometrial repair after artificial cycles and briefly discuss the opportunity for a
continuous regimen. Finally, revision following BMC Women Health's
formatting guidelines is required.
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.
I declare that I have no competing interests
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 publish my name with my
report.
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?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
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
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification
of this review directly to a Web of Science researcher profile (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 Web of Science after the final
decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have already registered with
Web of Science for a 
Web of Science researcher profile (this service was
previously known as “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 Web of Science, 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. Web of Science may use the Review Data to generate derivative
metadata for the benefit of Web of Science and you as a reviewer, carefully
considering the sensitivity of such information. For example, Web of Science
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 Web of Science’s
privacy policy 
https://clarivate.com/privacy-center/notices-policies/privacy-
policy/
Yes