Intraoperatively Diagnosed Double Cystic Duct During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Case Report of a Surgical Dilemma for the Operating Surgeons

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 succinctly outlines the case report's crucial elements, including the background, case presentation, clinical discussion, and conclusion, with all required components present. The chosen keywords—double cystic duct, common bile duct, cholecystectomy, case report—are relevant and accurately reflect the paper's content.

Goal

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

Comments: The introduction clearly states the goal, emphasizing the rarity and significance of detecting a double cystic duct during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The formulation is clear, setting a well-defined foundation for the report.

Structure

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

Comments: The structure is coherent, flowing logically from introduction to case presentation, discussion, and conclusion. It aligns well with the goal, focusing on the surgical dilemma and its resolution.

Discussion & Conclusion

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

Comments: The discussion and conclusion are directly related to the case's results, offering insights into the significance of identifying anatomical variations to avoid postoperative complications. They are coherent and tie back to the initial presentation and findings.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: The report references relevant literature, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the condition and its rarity. This supports the report's conclusions and contextualizes the case within broader medical knowledge.

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 seems appropriate for the topic's significance, providing detailed insight without unnecessary elaboration. Shortening the paper could risk omitting valuable information critical to understanding the case's uniqueness and implications.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Based on the provided sections, the writing style is clear and understandable, presenting complex medical information in an accessible manner. It maintains a professional tone suitable for an academic journal.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

This paper provides valuable insights into a rare anatomical variation encountered during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Highlighting the importance of being aware of such anomalies can significantly impact surgical outcomes and patient safety.

Reviewer 1: This case report effectively highlights the rarity and significance of identifying a double cystic duct during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. It is well-structured and provides a comprehensive overview of the condition, its clinical implications, and the surgical approach. The literature review is pertinent and enriches the discussion.

Reviewer 2: The paper is insightful, presenting a rare surgical observation with clarity and depth. It underscores the critical importance of pre-operative planning and intra-operative vigilance. The discussion is well-supported by literature, though further emphasis on the implications for surgical practice would enhance its value.

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