Symptomatic Preperitoneal Lipoma Resected via Preperitoneal Approach: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

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 includes essential components such as a brief introduction to lipomas, a summary of the case presentation, and a discussion highlighting the novelty of the minimally invasive surgical technique used.
The abstract does not explicitly list keywords. However, it includes key terms relevant to the study, such as "preperitoneal lipoma," "minimally invasive technique," and "laparoscopic surgical resection." These terms are appropriate for the topic and would likely be the keywords for the paper.

Goal

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

Comments: The introduction clearly states that lipomas are benign adipose tissue tumors, with an emphasis on the importance of accurate diagnosis and appropriate management. It introduces the novel minimally invasive technique for resecting a preperitoneal lipoma. The goal of presenting a new surgical approach is implicit, but it could be stated more explicitly to enhance clarity.

Structure

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

Comments: The structure of the paper appears coherent and well-organized. It systematically progresses from the introduction of the topic, through case presentation, surgical procedure details, and ends with a discussion. This structure aligns well with the paper's goal of presenting a novel surgical approach.

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

Comments: The methods, particularly the preperitoneal laparoscopic approach for lipoma resection, seem appropriate and well-utilized. The paper details the procedure and provides a rationale for its use, indicating a thorough application of the chosen methods.

Discussion & Conclusion

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

Comments: The Discussion and Conclusion sections of the paper are indeed related to the results presented earlier and are coherent. The Discussion section revisits the importance of considering preperitoneal lipomas in diagnoses of lower abdominal pain and emphasizes the effectiveness of the minimally invasive laparoscopic approach used in this case. The Conclusion ties these observations back to the case, highlighting the successful resection of the lipoma and the benefits of this technique, particularly in a day clinic setting. This alignment with the case presentation and results underscores a coherent flow of information and logical deduction in the paper.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: The author of the paper utilizes relevant literature to support their discussion and conclusions. References to previous studies and case reports are evident, particularly in the discussion of lipomas, their diagnosis, and surgical approaches.

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 is appropriate for the significance of the topic. It provides sufficient detail to understand the case, the surgical approach, and the implications for future practice without being overly verbose. While concise, it adequately covers the essential aspects of the case, methodology, and literature review. Shortening the paper might risk losing valuable context or details crucial for understanding the unique aspects of the case and the proposed surgical method. Therefore, I suggest maintaining its current length to preserve its value and comprehensiveness.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: The writing style in the paper is clear and understandable within the context of a scientific and medical paper. It follows a formal and technical writing style, which is typical for academic publications in the medical field. The language used is precise and specific, which is necessary for conveying medical information accurately.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

Here are some further comments on the paper:

1.     Clarity of Objectives: The paper could benefit from a more explicit statement of its primary objectives in the introduction. Clearly articulating the research question or the specific goals of the study can help guide the reader's understanding of the paper's purpose.

2.     References: While the paper utilizes relevant literature, it's important to ensure that all references are properly cited and listed in a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, or a specific medical journal's style) throughout the paper.

3.     Discussion Expansion: Expanding on the discussion section by comparing the presented case with similar cases from the literature could provide a more comprehensive perspective on the topic.

4.     Conclusion Emphasis: The conclusion could be strengthened by summarizing the key takeaways and emphasizing the clinical implications of the case and the proposed surgical technique.

5.     Abstract Keywords: Although the abstract contains relevant terms, including a dedicated section for keywords can make the paper more discoverable in academic databases.

Overall, the paper presents a valuable case study and surgical technique. Enhancements in clarity, organization, and accessibility can further improve its impact and reach a wider readership while maintaining its value for the medical community.

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