Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) for Primary Retrograde Type A Aortic Dissection

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: Excellent

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: Good

Comments:

The subheading "Discussion" should be introduced.

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 Introduction lays down the basics for taking up the present case report. The Discussion offers a thorough and detailed analysis of the findings of the present study taking all the relevant literature into account. It is well supported with briefly explained figures. A Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) was performed as an alternative to standard open repair in this case. The report is apt in concluding that an endovascular approach in select cases of retrograde Type A dissection (RTAD) will be a better option than the open approach.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Very good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of 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: Very good

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Very good

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This report describes the case of a 50-year-old male patient where the patient presented with a Type B dissection complicated by retrograde propagation, resulting in retrograde Type A dissection (RTAD). This case report holds significance as there is paucity of literature in management of retrograde Type A dissection. Acute aortic dissection is believed to be an emergent and life-threatening condition.

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