Optimal Timing of Cholecystectomy in Secondary Choledocholithiasis Patients Who Underwent Preoperative Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

the study is a retrospective study and also that the insurance houses databases might be biased by the necessity to   enter the demands for reimbursement of diagnosis
A prospective study will be very important to confirm the data

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

the authors present a study that aims to investigate optimal timing of VLC in secondary Choledocholithiasis in Patients Who Underwent Preoperative Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. I'd like to plaude the hard work done: even if the paper lack of a real novelty, it focus an interesting topic of surgical discussion. Simple size appears adequate and statistical analysis too. probability kaplan meier curves are quite hard to read. English form could be improved even if it could be accepted in its present form. results and conclusion section appear adequate and satisfying. references section should be improved. I'd like to suggest an extension of discussion section by adding complications arguments. You could add the reference  doi:10.23750/abm.v92iS1.10821  and properly discuss.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article evaluated the optimal timing for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with secondary choledocholithiasis in the Taiwanese cohort. They have concluded the optimal timing of cholecystectomy in secondary choledocholithiasis patients after preoperative ERCP is within two months (ILC) after hospital admission. It is a well-written article; however, there are some concerns about this article. 1. The authors could present representative images of ERCPs and cholecystectomies in their facilities. 2. Similar small sample study on these issues is already published. The authors could discuss the definition of duration after preoperative ERCP compared to others. 3. So many tables are confusing. The authors should unite these and present them more concisely. 4. The references are small and not updated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf