Iatrogenic Abdominal Firm Lump: A Case Report of a Retained Surgical Item Detected 8 Years Post-Abdominoplasty

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 does include all the necessary components. The chosen keywords are relevant and cover the main topics of the paper.

Goal

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

Comments: The goal is explicitly stated in the introduction. It presents RSB as a life-threatening situation and aims to highlight the case of a patient with an RSB due to a retained drain tube from abdominoplasty. The formulation is clear, focusing on the rarity and seriousness of such cases and the need for awareness and proper management policies.

Structure

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

Comments: The structure is coherent and aligned with the goal. It follows a logical progression from introduction to case presentation, discussion, and conclusion, which is suitable for a case report format. Each section contributes to building the narrative around the central theme of RSBs and their management.

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 presented case. They provide insights into the prevalence, diagnosis, management, and implications of RSBs, underscoring the importance of radiologic identification and the necessity of error reporting systems. The conclusions drawn are based on the findings from the case and the literature review, making them coherent with the rest of the paper.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: Yes, the author utilizes relevant literature to support the information provided in the manuscript.

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: Based on the content and structure of the document, the length appears adequate for the significance of the topic. Shortening the paper might risk omitting valuable details or insights that contribute to its educational value, especially in highlighting the complexity of diagnosing and managing RSBs.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: The writing style is clear, concise, and accessible, effectively communicating complex medical information in a manner understandable to its intended audience, which likely includes both medical professionals and scholars.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

The paper seems well-structured and thoroughly addresses the issue of Retained Surgical Bodies (RSBs), with a specific focus on a case related to abdominoplasty. The detailed case study approach provides valuable insights into the complexities of diagnosing and managing RSBs. The writing is clear, making the paper accessible to a broad audience, including those not specialized in this area. The utilization of relevant literature strengthens its arguments and the overall contribution to the field.

Reviewer 1:

The paper presents a compelling case study on Retained Surgical Bodies (RSBs), specifically focusing on a rare instance of a retained drain tube following abdominoplasty. The detailed case presentation, alongside a robust discussion underpinned by relevant literature, significantly contributes to the field. However, further elaboration on the preventive measures and the role of surgical teams in avoiding such incidences could enhance its value. Additionally, a comparison with similar cases in terms of outcomes and management strategies could provide a broader perspective on the issue.

Reviewer 2:

This paper effectively highlights the critical issue of RSBs through a well-documented case report. The writing style is clear, making complex information accessible. While the paper benefits from a strong literature review, incorporating more recent studies could update and strengthen the discussion. It would also be beneficial to include a section on patient outcomes and follow-up to provide insight into the long-term implications of such incidents. Furthermore, a discussion on the psychological impact on both the patient and the surgical team could offer a more holistic view of the consequences of RSBs.

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