The aim of the study was to compare the kissing and crossing Y stent techniques for intracranial aneurysms. The aim was clearly stated. The title was informative. The references were recent, relevant, and located correctly. All appropriate key studies were included.

The introduction was stated that this study is the first study that compared the safety and efficacy between two constructions. The question was clearly defined.

The process was defined clearly. The aneurysms were divided into proximal and distal types. The study methods were reliable and valid.

Tables and figures were relevant and clearly presented. Text and tables were complementary and there was no repetition. For wide-necked distal aneurysms, the crossing Y stent and kissing stents for proximal wide-necked aneurysm were feasible.

The results were discussed with relevant literature. The limitations were clearly stated. The conclusion was general. The long-term angiographic and clinical results are similarly good for both kissing-Y and crossing-Y stenting techniques.

The aim of the study was clear and the authors retrospectively reviewed their clinical experience. The long-term results for kissing and crossing Y stenting but in particular the crossing Y stent was appropriate for distal wide-necked aneurysms and kissing was a good option for wide-necked proximal aneurysms. It is a valuable study because it is a detailed and carefully prepared study in which crossing & kissing Y stent usage is compared for the first time in the literature.