Observe the Unexpected: A Strange History of Bioprosthesis in a Patient in Dialytic Treatment

Review Data

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

researchers?

A: Excellent

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: Very good

Structure

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

A: Very 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: Very good

Comments:

The case is described clearly and in adequate detail. The Conclusion elaborates on the reason behind the usual health complications associated with implant and hemodialysis and suggests the probable reason behind the spectacular success of the Shelhigh® No-React BioConduit in the present case. The need for larger studies is also mentioned.

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: Good

Comments: A few minor issues were noted –

·       In the title, “the "strange" history of a bioprosthesis” must be replaced with “A Strange History of Bioprosthesis”.

·       In the 3^rd sentence of the 3^rd paragraph of the Introduction, “shown clearly” must be replaced with “clearly shown”.

·       In the 5^th paragraph of the Introduction, “patient” must be replaced with “patients”.

·       In the 1^st sentence of the 6^th paragraph of the Introduction, “the” before calcification must be removed, and “towards” must be replaced with “to”.

·       In the 2^nd sentence of the 6^th paragraph of the Introduction, “According” must be followed by “to”.

·       In the last sentence of the Introduction, “show” must be replaced with “presents”, “whose” must be replaced with “but his”, and “bioprosthesis” must be replaced with “bioprosthetic”.

·       In the 1^st paragraph of Case Report, “a” before “transthoracic” must be removed in the 3^rd sentence, and “for” after “advised” must be removed in the 4^th sentence.

·       In the 2^nd paragraph of Case Report, “4 months” must be replaced with “4 month” in the 1^st sentence, and “cells” must be replaced with “cell” in the 2^nd sentence.

·       In the 1^st sentence of the last paragraph of Case Report, the hyphen in “Thirteen-years” must be removed.

·       In the 1^st sentence of the 1^st paragraph of the Conclusion, “heightens” must be replaced with “heighten”, and “sensitiveness” must be replaced with “sensitivity”.

·       In the last sentence of the 2^nd paragraph of Conclusion, “to occur” must be removed.

·       In the 2^nd sentence of the 3^rd paragraph of Conclusion, “increase trend for toxic molecules release of glutaraldehyde” must be replaced with “increasing trend of release of toxic glutaraldehyde molecules”.

·       In the 1^st sentence of the last paragraph of Conclusion, “blood contacting surfaces of the valves” must be replaced with “the surfaces of the valves in contact with blood”.

·       Articles (a, an, or the) and commas were missing in some places.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This is the report of a 73-year-old male patient demonstrating a 13-year history of biocompatibility with the Shelhigh® No-React BioConduit, showing resistance to calcification, no signs of infection, and normal functions of the bioprosthetic aortic valve. This case is extraordinary, and we may be dealing with a completely new technology that has not been studied yet and has the potential to improve the survival rate and quality of life of patients.

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