Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Late presentation of Extrauterine Adenomyomas after laparoscopic
morcellation at hysterectomy: A case report
Version: 
1 
Date: 
02 Mar 2021
Reviewer's report:
1. 
The English language should be checked through the manuscript by a
professional lector (for example, present tense and past tense are both
inappropriately used in Case presentation part)
2. 
The authors claim that the case is the 35th documented occurrence in the
literature to date. Other cases described in the literature until now were not
reviewed in the manuscript. The basic info about other cases, presented in a
Table, could give important data for the understanding of this type of
laparoscopic morcellation complication and should be added to the manuscript.
3. 
Line 124, page 5: ...Goserelin injections in the right iliac fossa... I am not
aware of such type of Goserelin application. Describe the technique and the
reason to choose it over usual intramuscular application?
4. 
Line 178, page 7: The terminus hysteroscopic morcellation is not used
anymore, because it was inappropriate. We talk about the hysteroscopic
mechanical tissue removal. The principle of hysteroscopic technique is
completely different comparing it to laparoscopic morcellation. The description
comparing both techniques is not sufficient and is not clarifying. Continuous
cutting and suction during the hysteroscopic technique, which decreases the risk
of tissue particle spread, is not mentioned.
5. 
The FDA announcement about the risk of laparoscopic morcellation is
mentioned in the manuscript but not it's critical reviews in the literature also by
important gynaecological endoscopy societies such as ESGE and others. This
should be added to the discussion.
6. 
The authors discuss about the benefits of the morcellation in a bag but it's
drawbacks are not mentioned. For a clearer view it should be added to the
discussion.
7. 
The title »Late presentation of extrauterine adenomyomas after laparoscopic
morcellation at hysterectomy: A case report« might be better.
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
Yes
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 
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?
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?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes