Case Report of an Aortic Laceration after a Posterior Approach for Lumbar Disc Herniation Repair

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 of the document effectively outlines the key components of the research, including the background, methodology, findings, and implications of the study. It addresses a specific instance of aortic injury following a lumbar disc herniation repair through the posterior approach and its management using an endovascular procedure. The keywords selected are appropriate as they directly relate to the core subjects and findings of the case report, ensuring that the study is discoverable to researchers interested in these specific aspects of spinal surgery complications.

Goal

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

Comments: The introduction of the document clearly states the goal, focusing on reporting a rare case of aortic injury following lumbar disc herniation repair, emphasizing the unusual nature and the chosen endovascular treatment approach. The formulation is clear and unambiguous, presenting the context and significance of the case in relation to existing literature, thereby setting a precise framework for the study's relevance and objectives.

Structure

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

Comments: The structure of the paper is coherent and aligns well with the goal of presenting a rare case of aortic injury following lumbar disc herniation repair. It follows a logical progression from introduction, case presentation, discussion, to conclusion, which is a typical format for case reports in the medical field. This structure supports the goal by providing a comprehensive overview of the case, including the background, the specific incident, the treatment approach, and the implications for future practice.

Discussion & Conclusion

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

Comments: The discussion and conclusion of your paper are directly related to the results and findings presented earlier, showcasing coherence. These sections reflect on the significance of the aortic injury case, its management, and the implications for clinical practice, effectively tying back to the initial objectives and results.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: The paper utilizes relevant literature to frame the case within the broader context of vascular complications associated with spinal surgery, indicating a thorough review and application of existing knowledge. This not only supports the uniqueness of the case but also enriches the discussion with comparative insights, contributing to the field's understanding of such rare occurrences.

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: Given the unique nature of the case and its implications for clinical practice, the length of the paper appears to be adequate to thoroughly cover the topic, including the background, case presentation, discussion, and conclusion. Shortening the paper could risk omitting valuable details or insights that contribute to the understanding and significance of the case.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: The writing style of the paper is clear and understandable, effectively communicating complex medical procedures and findings in an accessible manner. This clarity is crucial for readers from various backgrounds, ensuring that the significance of the case and its treatment approach are well articulated.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

The paper provides a valuable contribution to the medical literature by highlighting a rare complication and its management. It's well-structured, with a clear objective, and utilizes relevant literature effectively. The writing style is accessible, which is commendable given the complexity of the subject matter. To further enhance the paper, consider if there's additional recent literature that could be referenced to support your findings or discussion. Also, evaluate the possibility of including any patient follow-up data to provide insight into the long-term outcomes of the treatment approach. This could offer a more comprehensive view of the case's impact on patient care and future clinical practices.

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