Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is basically a case Report , and it needs to be more structured to appear as an innovative tecniques. 

Author Response

Point 1. - The paper is basically a case Report , and it needs to be more structured to appear as an innovative tecniques. Response 1: Please provide your response for Point 1. (in red) Thank you very much. Paper was re arranged and cleared and improved as best as possible to meet all reviewers criteria.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this technical description, the authors present a way to stabilize nasotracheal intubation of a patient that facilitates surgical maneuvers. 

Much of the introduction can be carried over to the discussion.

The presentation of the case begins on page 5 line 163. Page 3 lines 92-162 do not correspond to a description of the case or the technique and are superfluous.

page 5 line 169: Missing initial parenthesis in Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy)

page 5 line 169: It is preferable to initially describe an acronym and then put the acronym in parentheses. In this case the usual is "Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO).

Page 8 figure 6: is unnecessary and adds nothing to the description of the technique.

Pages 9 and 10, lines 289-300 (Conclusion): these are not conclusions drawn from the case.

Author Response

Point 1. In this technical description, the authors present a way to stabilize nasotracheal intubation of a patient that facilitates surgical maneuvers.

Response 1: Please provide your response for Point 1. (in red) – Thank you . – Presented paper described Authors philosophy on nasotrachel tube stabilization in order to improve stable visualisation towards asymmetric mandible and dont disturb nasal anatomy.

Point 2. Much of the introduction can be carried over to the discussion.

Response 2 Please provide your response for Point 2. (in red) – Thank you . – Introduction was shortened and disussion more balanced.

Point 3. The presentation of the case begins on page 5 line 163. Page 3 lines 92-162 do not correspond to a description of the case or the technique and are superfluous.

Response 3 Please provide your response for Point 3. (in red) – Thank you . –Page 3 includes the intriduction to the case and its necessary to highlight some sirious issuesa that are necessary for surgeons in this case in order to propper present used heren disc for NTI tube placement. Some slight changes were made and text was re-arranged. Some text was moved before case report in introduction.

Point 4. page 5 line 169: Missing initial parenthesis in Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy)

Response 4 Please provide your response for Point 4. (in red) – Thank you .added.

Point 5. page 5 line 169: It is preferable to initially describe an acronym and then put the acronym in parentheses. In this case the usual is "Bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO).

Response 5 Please provide your response for Point 5. (in red) – Thank you .added.

Point 6. Page 8 figure 6: is unnecessary and adds nothing to the description of the technique.

Response 6 Please provide your response for Point 6. (in red) – Thank you . A sentence on why classic orotracheal tube is disrupting propper anatomical relations, bite and jaw positions is necessary to present for a non surgical reader. Added - Figure 6). Especially in classical orotracheal intubation, the proper occlusion and bite is unable to be evaluated and established properly.

Point 7. Pages 9 and 10, lines 289-300 (Conclusion): these are not conclusions drawn from the case.

Response 7 Please provide your response for Point 7. (in red) – Thank you . Conclusions added and re-arranged.

 

Thank you!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Numerous correction have been made and now the text look likes a retelling of a tecnique. The References are now adequates.

Author Response

Response 1: Please provide your response for Point 1. (in red) Thank you very much. Your valuable comments and advice was remarkable, thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made sufficient modifications for publication

Author Response

Response 1: Please provide your response for Point 1. (in red) – Thank you . Because of your great advices and review , presented herein article is great! Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx