Transoral Approach to Parotid Tumors: A Review of the Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This scientific review addresses an interesting topic for the scientific community and allows for the verification of a safe oncological surgical technique for the treatment of deep parotid lobe tumors involving the parapharyngeal space.

The review is well documented. The discussion is relevant.  The analysis of the literature in the various points of the discussion is complete and updated and the discussion addresses the proposed theme in a relevant way.

 

Author Response

Thanks for your positive comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Is it accurate to mention in the abstract that a review of the English literature has been conducted?

 

This review must include a graphical representation of the anatomy and localization of PPS. 

 

The inclusion and exclusion criteria are good, and Figure 1 is informative. 

Figure 1 must be accompanied by a descriptive footnote. 

There are already many literature reviews available on this topic, even though they are not exactly the same. At the current format, this proposed review lacks the quality to be published Current Oncology journal. The authors should explain the novelty of the review and include graphical or image representations. 

Author Response

We thank you for your suggestions and the opportunity to revise our paper. Changes were highlighted.

• Is it accurate to mention in the abstract that a review of the English literature has been conducted?
• This sentence was removed from the abstract.
• This review must include a graphical representation of the anatomy and localization of PPS. 
• A graphical representation of the anatomy of the PPS was added (new figure 1).
• The inclusion and exclusion criteria are good, and Figure 1 is informative. Figure 1 must be accompanied by a descriptive footnote. 
• A descriptive footnote was added to this figure (in the revised paper it is figure 2).
• There are already many literature reviews available on this topic, even though they are not exactly the same. At the current format, this proposed review lacks the quality to be published Current Oncology journal. The authors should explain the novelty of the review and include graphical or image representations. 
• The novelty of the review was highlighted in the abstract and the conclusions. Graphics were added (Figures 3 and 4).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would appreciate it if the authors avoided repeating the sentence about their novelty in both abstract as well as on the conclusion parts.