Ganglioneuroma and Its Very Rare Localisation: A Case Report 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

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 case description is adequate. The Discussion section briefly illustrates the localizations, clinical manifestations, diagnostic methods and the treatment of ganglioneuroma. The Discussion is well-supported with adequate relevant literature. It also describes the importance of imageology and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that help in preoperative planning. Lastly, the Conclusion states that complete surgical resection represents the only therapeutic choice in such 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: Very good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Weak

Comments:

·       The title of the article has not been constructed properly. This should be reframed as “Ganglioneuroma and Its Very Rare Localisation: A Case Report and Review of the Literature”.

·       The 8^th and 9^th sentence of the Abstract should be merged and reframed as “Similar type of this case has been described only once in literature and reviewed from anglophone literature, which is selected…neck area”.

·       The last sentence of the Introduction does not make sense. Hence, it should be rephrased as “In the area of foramen type, dumbbell shaped tumor found only in 2 cases and in the area of the upper cervical spine, only one case was found in the root area 8”.

·       The 4^th sentence of the 1^st paragraph of the Case does not make sense. Hence, it should be rephrased as “These were gradually worsening the problem.”

·       The 10^th sentence of the 1^st paragraph of the Case should be rephrased as “The examination of eyesight shows following findings… a lack of accommodation.”

·       The 12^th sentence of the 1^st paragraph of the Case should be rephrased as “These were examined neurologically… one on the right.”

·       The 2^nd sentence of the 3^rd paragraph of the Case does not make sense. Hence, it should be reframed as “Satellite cells are found on the periphery of some ganglia cells.”

·       Words like “regred”, “suiveded” do not have any meaning. The spelling should be checked by the author.

·       Words like “dumbbell”, “neurofibromatosis”, “mediastinum”, “retroperitoneum”, “diagnosis”, “neurofibroma”, “accommodation”, “anisocoria”, “carotid”, “ventro”, “myasthenia”, “ganglioneuroma”, “tetraparesis”, “hemiparesis”, “loose”, “technique”, “mild”, “adjacent” are misspelled in the text section of the manuscript.

·       In Table 1, in the “size, cm” column corresponding to the row “Zhang (2008) [19]”, “Upper neck/left” should be removed as it should not be mentioned under this column.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This case report presents a case of cervical ganglioneuroma grown in the C7/Th1 foramen area on the right side in a 38-year-old man. Clinical examinations such as imageology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed the size, localization and composition of this well-differentiated neuronal tumor. This study highlights that complete surgical resection is the treatment of choice and it concludes that microscopic surgery is the best technique to be performed which results in better outcomes. The relapse of the tumor is not described in literature studies.

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