Radiological Parameters Review for Choanal Atresia
, Maryia Chernikava 1, Valeria Pasquali 1, Serena Bertin 2, Mario Ciotti 1, Giulia de Soccio 2, Vincenzo Savastano 2 and Carlo Catalano 1
A Simon Carney
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction is good. There are some words in Italian and they presence must be more explained and each of that should be presented in English
Study design is clear presented but it is not very achieving and innovative . In discussion there is need to present comparison also with Traecher Collins and other diseases (now is good comparison with CHARGE disease)
Author Response
Dear reviewer based on your suggestion we have made changes to our article. Following a guideline we made sure to adjust to an appropriate language in English, we revised the methods, results and conclusions. The study we conducted was carried out on patients without malformations. we thank you for your suggestions. we look forward to your positive feedback for the improvement of our protocols
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a good study that has studied the bony variations in a cohort of choanal atresia patients in comparison to healthy controls ( direct/historical). These are my comments:
1.The authors have not explained the reason for taking 2 different conntrol groups.
2. There is inadequate explanation to how these bony landmarks are important in case of choanal atresia.
3. There is no discussion on how these new findings will help in Endoscopic surgical management.
4. Describing the specific findings and their surgical application may improve the interest in this study.
Author Response
Dear reviewer based on your suggestion we have made changes to our article. Following a guideline we have made sure to adapt to an appropriate language in English, revised the control groups, explained what our study is for, explained the use of surgical endoscopy for the correction of atresia. we thank you for your suggestions. looking forward to your positive feedback for the improvement of the protocols we have explained.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
There is no doubt this paper has looked at a huge number of anatomical measurements relating to the radiological assessment of patients with choanal atresia. At the end of the paper, however, I was left with the question: "so what?". There was no real null-hypothesis to be tested, no prospective component to evaluate radiological parameters guiding surgical approach to achieve better outcomes and it really seemed like a bit of a fishing expedition. Given the number of variables being studied, the subject numbers are low and power is a worry. I also felt the english needed to be improved and the whole "story" through introduction to discussion needed to be much better.
Author Response
Dear reviewer based on your suggestion we have made changes to our article. Following a guideline we have made sure to adapt to an appropriate language in English Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references, the research design appropriate, the methods adequately described, the results clearly presented.the conclusions supported by the results,. we thank you for your suggestions. we look forward to your positive feedback for the improvement of the protocols we have outlined.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
