Small Bowel Mesenteric Pseudocysts: Report of a Case and Review of the Literature
Small Bowel Mesenteric Pseudocysts: Report of a Case and Review of the Literature
Review Data
Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for
researchers?
A: Good
Comments: The word “mesentery” in title has been changed to “mesenteric”.
Abstract & Keywords
Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?
A: Good.
Goal
Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?
A: Good.
Structure
Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?
A: Good.
Tools and Methods
Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?
A: Good.
Discussion & Conclusion
Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?
A: Good.
Comments: The Discussion gives an overview of the occurrence, morphology, pathogenesis, and the possible non-specific symptoms of mesenteric pseudocysts providing relevant literature. This report further suggests the approaches of removing mesenteric pseudocysts (MPs) by complete excision following laparoscopy or open surgery associated with a partial resection of the bowel.
Literature
Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?
A: Good.
Author's knowledge
Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?
A: Good.
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?
A: Good.
Figures & Tables
Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?
A: Good.
Writing style
Q: Is it clear and understandable?
A: Good.
Further comments on the paper
Comments: This case report presents a 50-year-old female patient with persistent, non-specific abdominal pain and no response to medical therapy which was later found as inflammatory mesenteric pseudocysts (MP) on histological examination. This also illustrates that MP is difficult to diagnose without differential diagnostic techniques due to their lack of specific symptoms. Lastly, it states that complete surgical excision must be the preferred choice for complete removal of the lesion irrespective of its nature whether it is malignant or benign.
Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?
A: Yes - Suitable to be published
If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.
Thanks,
Science Repository Team
Science Repository This email is restricted to the intended user. |
Science Repository - Support |
Author Info
Beatrice D'Orazio Bonventre Sebastiano Martorana Guido Cudia Bianca Sciumé Carmelo Gaetano Di Vita Geraci Girolamo
Corresponding Author
Gaetano Di VitaGeneral Surgery Unit, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Stomatological Sciences, University of Palermo, Italy
Article Info
Article Type
Case Report and Review of the LiteraturePublication history
Received: Mon 24, Aug 2020Accepted: Wed 09, Sep 2020
Published: Mon 21, Sep 2020
Copyright
© 2023 Gaetano Di Vita. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.DOI: 10.31487/j.SCR.2020.09.13