Correlation between Bladder Neck Preservation, Positive Surgical Margins, and Biochemical Recurrence in Laparoscopic and Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective Cohort Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents the correlation between bladder neck preservation during radical prostatectomy and positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence, respectively. The authors results are based on a relatively small study group of patients, comparing radical prostatectomy with and without bladder preservation. The results support that bladder neck preservation does not affect recurrence, nor the incidence of positive margins on pathology specimens, aspect that is of great importance in patient management, implying not only the possibility of achieving optimal surgical outcomes, but also ensuring a good quality of life for patients.

The paper is well written, but requires English review to ensure proper use of grammar and a better flow of the text.

 Furthermore, several abbreviations are not presented at first use.

In table 2 the p value for final Gleason score is missing.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

R1: The manuscript presents the correlation between bladder neck preservation during radical prostatectomy and positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence, respectively. The authors results are based on a relatively small study group of patients, comparing radical prostatectomy with and without bladder preservation. The results support that bladder neck preservation does not affect recurrence, nor the incidence of positive margins on pathology specimens, aspect that is of great importance in patient management, implying not only the possibility of achieving optimal surgical outcomes, but also ensuring a good quality of life for patients.

Q1: The paper is well written, but requires English review to ensure proper use of grammar and a better flow of the text.

A1: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have revised the grammar and flow of the text by a native English speaker. The corrections are marked red in the manuscript.

Q2:  Furthermore, several abbreviations are not presented at first use.

A2: Thank you very much for this proposal. We have introduced the abbreviations as suggested.

Q3: In table 2 the p value for final Gleason score is missing.

A3: We thank the reviewer for this observation. The p value has been added in table 2 as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents the results of a prospective cohort study, that evaluates surgical, pathological outcomes and biochemical recurrence in patients undergoing bladder neck preservation in radical prostatectomy.

The authors show that bladder neck preservation in radical prostatectomy is not associated with increased level of positive surgical margins.

The article is well written and well structured. The topic is interesting. There is little evidence in medical literature about the topic and further studies are needed to draw final conclusions.

In my opinion, the article can be published.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

R2: The manuscript presents the results of a prospective cohort study, that evaluates surgical, pathological outcomes and biochemical recurrence in patients undergoing bladder neck preservation in radical prostatectomy.

The authors show that bladder neck preservation in radical prostatectomy is not associated with increased level of positive surgical margins.

The article is well written and well structured. The topic is interesting. There is little evidence in medical literature about the topic and further studies are needed to draw final conclusions.

In my opinion, the article can be published.

Author: The authors would like to thank You for Your comments and observations.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript by Boris M. Kajmakovic studies that the correlation between bladder neck preservation, positive surgical margins, and biochemical recurrence in laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy. There are some comments for this manuscript.

1)     The first abbreviation must have the full name in this manuscript, such as ORP and LRP.

2)     In your reference section, your references are not up to date and please quote the references in the last 5 years and pay attention to the uniformity of the reference format.

3)     Please add the ethics number in the Ethics approval section.

4） It is noted that your manuscript needs carefully editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammer, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals of this review are clear to read.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

R3: The manuscript by Boris M. Kajmakovic studies that the correlation between bladder neck preservation, positive surgical margins, and biochemical recurrence in laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy. There are some comments for this manuscript.

Q1: The first abbreviation must have the full name in this manuscript, such as ORP and LRP.

A1: Thank you very much for this proposal. We have introduced the abbreviations as suggested.

Q2: In your reference section, your references are not up to date and please quote the references in the last 5 years and pay attention to the uniformity of the reference format.

A2: Thank you for this suggestion. After careful review of current literature we have not found a more recent publication regarding this specific topic.

Q3: Please add the ethics number in the Ethics approval section.

A3: The EC approval number has been added in the methods section.

Q4: It is noted that your manuscript needs carefully editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammer, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals of this review are clear to read.

A4: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have revised the grammar and flow of the text by a native English speaker. The corrections are marked red in the manuscript.