All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for addressing the comments from both reviewers in your revision, which I have reviewed. Your manuscript is now ready for publication.
The revised manuscript reported and compared the radiological changes of surgery segment and adjacent segment between OLIF and MIS-TLIF of Lumber4-5 in early-stage after surgery. It may provide a clinical observational basis for ASD, since ASD is always regarded as a long-stage clinical complication following lumbar spinal fusion surgery; subsequent outcome reports and analyses are expected. This clinical study was reasonably designed, and the conclusion was reliable.
-
-
The items I have mentioned before have been completely revised and/or explained. Thank you for carefully revising and responding to the corresponding comments, which have made the manuscript which makes the manuscript more appropriate and readable.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Good Design**
- Literature references are acceptable.
- The tables and overall structure are well done.
- The English is clear and correct
ASD is a significant issue in the daily practice of spine surgery that is challenging to address. It is essential to compare various approaches to managing.
In this study, the authors aim to compare different methods used in the production (ASD). They analyze the radiological findings and the clinical follow-up; however, the timing of the post-operative evaluation and the average duration of the follow-up are not clearly defined.
Radiographics outcome were well design and a optimal way to compare clinical finding with radiographics finding but also to much measures could confuse the result and conclusion.
The study demonstrates a solid design; however, certain aspects require attention. The sample size is limited, consisting of only five cases of ASD, which may hinder the ability to draw firm conclusions. Additionally, enhancing the clarity of the radiological findings and improving the follow-up process would be beneficial. Addressing these areas could significantly strengthen the overall impact of the research.
At this moment, I have no additional comments to provide.
The manuscript titled “Comparison of early radiological adjacent segment changes between oblique lateral interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion” reported and compared the radiological changes of surgery segment and adjacent segment between OLIF and MIS-TLIF of Lumber4-5 in early-stage after surgery. It may provide a clinical observational basis for ASD, since ASD is always regarded as a long-stage clinical complication following lumbar spinal fusion surgery, subsequent outcome reports and analyses are expected.
no comment
no comment
Some minor issues:
1. lumber4-5 is recommended to be added to the title
2. Line 164-165 “The 2 cohorts were matched by sex, age, and segment.” How could you do this match? Can you give some details? And how to avoid select bias? And this is a retrospective study?
3. Line210-214 “The distance between the adjacent superior and inferior endplates was shortest in the planes of the anterior surfaces of the…” Here, what does shortest mean? Compared with what?
4. Line340-342 “little is known about the effects of OLIF and MIS-TLIF on adjacent segments, so ...” Here short-term changes should be strengthened, not simply say “the effects”
5. Line394 “We believed OLIF could slow the radiographic degeneration of adjacent segments” Here “slow” is not appropriate, maybe “not accelerate” or “better than MIS-TLIF” or something else…
6. I would like the authors could explain their principles for surgical methods selection. For L4-5 segment degeneration, while conservative treatment is ineffective, what is the basis for choose between OLIF and MIS-TLIF
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.