Congenital Repeated Anus: A Case Report

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for researchers?

A: Very good

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Very good

Goal

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

A: Not applicable.

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: Very good

Discussion & Conclusion

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

A: Very good

Comments: The case description is adequate. The Discussion section, with the help of adequate relevant literature, explains the rarity of the case of the congenital repeated anus where the duplication involved the anus only. It further focuses on the importance of fistula resection to treat such rare cases.

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: Excellent

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments:

·       In the last sentence of the Abstract, “very” should be removed before “ideal.”

·       The 6^th sentence of the 1^st paragraph of the Case Report should be rephrased as “According to hearsay, due to a complication about congenital anal atresia, taking surgery at that age may affect fertility.”

·       In the last sentence of the Patient Outcome, “leave” should be replaced with “leaving” and “the” should be inserted before “hospital.”

·       Words like “confirmed”, “Iodine” are misspelled in the text section of the manuscript.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This case report presents a rare case of a repeated anal deformity in a 33-year-old Chinese woman associated with an open perianal fistula, intermittent discharge of feces and gas after birth. Physical examination and medical imaging revealed the presence of sinus formation on the right perianal side. This study highlights the significance of surgical treatment in order to improve the prognosis of the patient. There is a discrepancy in the age of the patient reported in this case. In the Abstract, the age was mentioned as a 45-year-old Chinese woman and in the Case Report, the age was 33.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Corrections - Suitable for publishing after corrections

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

Thanks,
Science Repository Team