Tubal Stump Ectopic: A Case Report on Repeat Ipsilateral Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy

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: 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: 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 aptly describes the rarity of the case of recurrent ipsilateral tubal ectopic pregnancy following salpingectomy as well as reports the successful management of this case by total salpingectomy. It adequately discusses literature relevant to this study. This report concludes by stating that if a laparoscopic salpingectomy is attempted, the remnant tubal stump should be totally fulgurated, having left no residue and partial salpingectomy should never be recommended for these cases.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Very 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: Very 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

Comments:

·       The word “Northern” is misspelled in the text section of the manuscript.

·       The 2^nd sentence of the Case Facts under Abstract should be reframed as “She was clinically stable,…in the Pouch of Douglas.”

·       The last sentence of the Inference under Abstract does not make sense. Hence this should be rephrased as “Laparoscopic diagnostic salpingectomy should be performed through excision by diathermy to prevent the risk of EP in the tubal stump.”

·       The 4^th sentence of the 1^st paragraph of the Case Presentation should be reframed as “She did not have any substantial medical history. She was a non-smoker, without any allergies and was not on any medications or contraceptives.”

·       In the last sentence of the 1^st paragraph of the Discussion, “of” should be replaced with “to” before “morbidity”.

·       In the 1^st sentence of the last paragraph of the Discussion, “In” should be inserted before “our experience”.

·       In the last sentence of the Conclusion, “As a conclusion” should be replaced with “In conclusion”.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This case report presents a case in which a 34-year-old Irish woman presented to the hospital with 6 weeks’ gestational amenorrhea and mild crampy abdominal pain with a history of laparoscopic right salpingectomy for right-sided tubal ectopic pregnancy 2 years previously. This is a rare case of recurrent ipsilateral tubal ectopic pregnancy after laparoscopic right salpingectomy. This is an unusual case of an intrauterine pregnancy combined with a tubal stump. This rare presentation for ectopic pregnancy (EP) is a significant cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. It highlights the efficacy of laparoscopic ipsilateral total salpingectomy using diathermy to prevent the risk of EP in the tubal stump. The patient reported no short- or long-term consequences postoperatively. However, a salpingectomy does not guarantee that all ipsilateral ectopic are removed; it still does reduce the chances of a tubal relapse on the same site. This study also recommends the need for clinician awareness and vigilance for the management of these rare cases.

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