Reusable Vessel Sealing Device Can Significantly Reduce Medical Costs Compared to Disposable Device in Modified Total Neck Dissection

Review Data

o   Purpose and Significance of Study: This is the first comparative study of the performance of the two vessel sealing devices, the disposable ‘LigaSure small jaw’ and the newer reusable ‘marClampCut IQ’. The retrospective study analysed the differences in patient age, blood loss, operation time and cost per surgical procedure (performed by the same surgeon) and inferred that the reusable device provided similar clinical efficacy and safety (if not more) at one quarter of the cost of the disposable device for modified total neck dissection. The only possible limitation of this new device is that it requires thorough washing, followed by sterilization after surgery for prevention of infection, which may lead to more time and cost consumption, making the disposable device a better option under certain conditions. The success of the reusable device is expected to be extended for other surgical procedures as well. The findings of this study are very significant not only for the patients, but also the governments and the hospitals, as aptly explained in the manuscript.

o   The Introduction places the present study in context by explaining the need for technically advanced surgical tools in the first place and further elaborates on the need for a better alternative of the more commonly used ‘LigaSure small jaw’. The Discussion successfully throws light on the broader implications of the findings and mentions a possible limitation of the ‘marClampCut IQ’. The parameters selected for the comparative analysis are adequate, and the inferences are consistent with the data. But it would be great if the use of median values instead of the generally used mean values can be explained. 

o   A few minor errors (already corrected in the galley proof) are listed below –

·       In the 3^rd sentence of the 2^nd paragraph of the Abstract, “frequent” must be removed, and in the last sentence of the same paragraph, “with” must be removed,

·       In the 4^th sentence of the 2^nd paragraph of the Abstract, “Age and operation time were no significant differences” must be rephrased as “There were no significant differences in age and operation time”.

·       In the 1^st sentence of the 1^st paragraph of the Introduction, “In these days” must be replaced with “Recently”, “accordance” must be replaced with “keeping”, “complicatedly developed” must be replaced with “complicated”, and “technique” must be replaced with “techniques”.

·       In the 1^st sentence of the 3^rd paragraph of the Introduction, “for” must be inserted before “extended”, and “disposableness” must be replaced with “disposability”.

·       In the 2^nd sentence of the 3^rd paragraph of the Introduction, “another” must be replaced with “other”, and “aallow” must be replaced with “allow”.

·       In the last sentence of the 3^rd paragraph of the Introduction, “as follows” must be removed, and “heat low” must be replaced with “low thermal”.

·       In the last sentence of the 2^nd paragraph of the Materials and Methods, “sterilizable” must be replaced with “sterilized”.

·       In the last sentence of Statistical Analysis under the Results, “surgical time of each group” must be replaced with “surgical times of the two groups”.

·       In the 1^st sentence of Cost Saving for Operation, “Each price” must be replaced with “The prices per unit”.

·       In the 2^nd sentence of the 1^st paragraph of the Discussion, “a severe potency which” must be replaced with “serious implications and”, and “,” after “patients” must be replaced with “.”

·       In the last sentence of the 1^st paragraph of the Discussion, “have” must be inserted before “also”, “demanding” must be replaced with “demand”, and “treatment quality” must be replaced with “quality treatment”.

·       In the 3^rd sentence of the 3^rd paragraph of the Discussion, “According to” must be replaced with “In”, and “reduce” must be replaced with “the reduction”.

·       In the 1^st sentences of the 4^th and the 5^th paragraphs of the Discussion, “comparison” must be replaced with “comparative”.

·       In the 1^st sentence of the 5^th paragraph of the Discussion, “till date” must be inserted after “‘LigaSure small jaw’ and ‘marClampCut IQ’”, the sentence must be ended there, and the 2^nd sentence must begin as “In the present study, ‘marClampCut IQ’ showed”.

·       In the 3^rd sentence of the 5^th paragraph of the Discussion, “thoroughly” must be replaced with “thorough”.

·       The sentence under Conclusions must be rephrased as “In this report, compared to the disposable device ‘LigaSure small jaw’, the reusable device ‘marClampCut IQ’ provided similar clinical efficacy for modified neck dissection, and the cost per surgical procedure was significantly reduced to the level of one-quarter”.

·       Usage of inappropriate prepositions in several places, e.g., “on” after “efficiency” must be replaced with “in” in the last sentence of the 1^st paragraph of the Introduction, “for” must be replaced with “as a” in the 2^nd sentence of the 2^nd paragraph of the Introduction, and so on.

·       Usage of the incorrect forms of singular/plural words, e.g., “tool” must be replaced with “tools” in the 1^st sentence of the 2^nd paragraph of the Introduction, “issue” must be replaced with “issues” and “fields” must be replaced with “field” in the 2^nd sentence of the 1^st paragraph of the Discussion, and so on.

·       Articles, e.g., “the”, “a”, etc. and commas were missing in several places.

The manuscript is therefore recommended for publication in the Journal of Surgical Oncology.

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team