Pyogenic Hepatic Abscess Formation after Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass: A Case Report and Literature Review of an Infrequently Encountered Postoperative Complication

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest?

Comments: Yes, the topic is relevant to the journal area of interest.

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

Comments: The abstract provides a concise summary of the paper, including the introduction, case presentation, clinical discussion, and conclusion. It outlines the importance of the topic, the case's specifics, and the outcome, adhering to the expected structure of a scientific abstract. The keywords selected are relevant and appropriately chosen, focusing on the main aspects of the case report: liver abscess, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, percutaneous drainage, bariatric surgery, and case report.

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

Comments: The Introduction clearly states the goal: to report a rare case of Pyogenic Liver Abscess (PLA) following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). It sets the context by discussing the rarity of liver abscesses as postoperative complications and the importance of recognizing and managing such complications. The goal is formulated in a clear and unambiguous manner.

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

Comments: The paper's structure is coherent, following a logical flow from introduction to case presentation, discussion, and conclusion. Each section builds upon the previous, with the case presentation providing a detailed account of the patient's condition and treatment, followed by a discussion that contextualizes the case within the broader medical literature. The structure aligns well with the goal of the paper, effectively supporting the case report's relevance and significance.

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

Comments: The discussion and conclusion sections are directly related to the case presented, drawing insights from the patient's condition, treatment, and outcome. These sections offer a coherent analysis of the case in the context of existing medical knowledge, emphasizing the rarity of the complication and the importance of early detection and management. The conclusion succinctly summarizes the key points and learnings from the case.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: The author cites relevant literature to contextualize the case, support the discussion, and validate the approaches taken in diagnosis and treatment. The references are current and pertinent to the topic, enhancing the paper's credibility and the arguments made within.

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

Comments: The length of the paper seems adequate given the complexity and rarity of the case being discussed. It provides sufficient detail to understand the case's significance without being overly lengthy. Shortening the paper could risk omitting valuable details or context that contribute to understanding the case's importance and the rationale behind the clinical decisions made.

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Legends and notations in the figures and tables are clear and effectively contribute to understanding the case presentation and the diagnostic findings. They are suitably used, enhancing the reader's comprehension of the case and the evidence supporting the diagnosis and treatment outcomes.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: The writing style is clear, concise, and understandable. Medical terminology is used appropriately, with explanations provided for more complex concepts, making the paper accessible to readers with a basic understanding of medical principles.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

The paper is well-structured and informative, providing valuable insights into a rare postoperative complication of RYGB. The detailed case presentation, along with the thoughtful discussion and use of relevant literature, contributes significantly to the existing body of knowledge on the topic. It would be beneficial for future readers if the authors included a brief section on potential preventive measures or early detection strategies for such complications in bariatric surgery patients.

Reviewer 1:

This case report on Pyogenic Hepatic Abscess Formation after Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass is well-structured, informative, and contributes valuable insights into a rare complication. The abstract and keywords are aptly chosen, and the introduction clearly states the study's goal. The paper maintains coherence throughout, with a logical flow from introduction to conclusion. The discussion effectively ties the case to relevant literature, enhancing its educational value. However, incorporating suggestions on preventive measures could further enrich the paper. The use of clear legends and notations alongside an understandable writing style makes this a significant contribution to medical literature.

Reviewer 2:

The manuscript presents a compelling case of a rare postoperative complication, with a clear and concise abstract, appropriately chosen keywords, and a well-articulated goal in the introduction. The structure of the paper facilitates a smooth narrative flow, aligning with the stated objective. The discussion is insightful, drawing on current literature to contextualize the case's significance. The conclusion succinctly encapsulates the case's learnings. To augment the manuscript's value, future directions or preventive strategies could be briefly discussed. Overall, the clarity of writing and the effective use of visuals and notations make this case report a noteworthy addition to surgical literature.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - This manuscript is recommended for further publication

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team