Novel Quantum Molecular Resonance Energy Source for Laparoscopic Bipolar Vessel Sealer: An Experimental Study in Animal Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this experimental animal study the authors compare the in vivo results of vascular sealing using two types of energies.

It is a well-written article, although it has several errors that need to be corrected in order to publish the article.

Table 2 requires P values to be able to state that QMR energy sources are superior to Ligasure, as only the findings in the two groups are described, with no comparison values.

Table 3 is not understood at all. There are three comparison columns of different items but only two pigs are operated (4 kidneys in total, two in each group). The content of this table should be modified.

The results obtained are preliminary, due to the small sample size of the study, and furthermore, they have not been obtained in human patients, so caution should be exercised with the conclusions drawn.

Finally, several typographical errors have been found throughout the manuscript, so a thorough grammatical revision by a native English reviewer is recommended.

Author Response

I attached 'response to reviewer comments' file.

Hope to listen good news from reviewer.

 

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very promising project and I sincerely hope this fundamental research will find its way in the operating theatre. 

In my experience, two aspects of these sealing devices have huge importance in practice (more important than the diameter of the vessel we intend to seal because we can use clips/hemolocks and so on): smoke formation (less I gather for the new technology) and energy dissipation (not highlighted by the authors). I think energy dissipation (and potential injury of tissues like nerves) should be studied - maybe measurement of temperature in the surrounding tissues during use. 

The references could be updated. 

The manuscript need English proofreading. 

 

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The description of the surgical procedure for rabbits should be modified: - was a permanent intravenous access established? From the text it appears that a single bolus of propofol was given. -why no analgesic such as fentanyl was given during anaesthesia? Especially as an analgesic such as butorphanol was not given during premedication either. - at what point was the abdominal cavity opened? Was it in the linea alba? - please check whether 1.5 mg/kg propofol was in fact administered -How long did the procedure last? What model of microscope was used for microscopic observation?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I attached 'response to reviewer comments' file.

Hope to listen good news from reviewer.

 

Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

As the authors noted in their response, they used a legal model of anaesthesia. Glycopyrolate and propofol do not have any analgesic effect and therefore I strongly suggest that in future studies they implement analgesics, the entire range of which are designed for use on animals.
I suggest using:
Carpenter J., W.: Exotic Animals Formulary. Elsevier 2018