Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 21, Issue 9, pp 773–774 | Cite as

Reviewers should have known better

  • M. Gachabayov
  • S. K. Abbas
  • S. B. Yelika
  • K. You
  • R. Bergamaschi
Correspondence
  • 76 Downloads

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Trenti L, Biondo S, Galvez A, Bravo A, Cabrera J, Kreisler E (2017) Distal doppler-guided transanal hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy for grade III and IV hemorrhoids: postoperative morbidity and long-term outcomes. Tech Coloproctol [Ahead of print]Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giordano P, Nastro P, Davies A, Gravante G (2011) Prospective evaluation of stapled haemorrhoidopexy versus transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialisation for stage II and III haemorrhoids: three-year outcomes. Tech Coloproctol 15(1):67–73CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denoya P, Tam J, Bergamaschi R (2014) Hemorrhoidal dearterialization with mucopexy versus hemorrhoidectomy: 3-year follow-up assessment of a randomized controlled trial. Tech Coloproctol 18:1081–1085CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Gachabayov
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. K. Abbas
    • 1
  • S. B. Yelika
    • 1
  • K. You
    • 1
  • R. Bergamaschi
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Colon and Rectal SurgeryState University of New YorkStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Health Sciences Center T18-046BStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations