ArticleSurgical endoscopy2013
Comparing over-the-scope clip versus endoloop and clips (KING closure) for access site closure: a randomized experimental study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precutting Endoscopic Band Ligation-Assisted Resection Is Safe and Effective for Treating Gastric Submucosal Tumors from the Muscularis Propria.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
- Application of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery with ENDOCRAB system for stomach perforation model: ex vivo porcine study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Endoscopic Treatment for Gastric Subepithelial Tumor.Journal of gastric cancer · 2024Review
- Iatrogenic colon perforation during colonoscopy, diagnosis/treatment, and follow-up processes: A single-center experience.Turkish journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Paradigm shift in management of acute iatrogenic colonic perforations: 24-year retrospective comprehensive study.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Closure of mucosal defect with a micro-ring technique: simple, cheap, and effective.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2020Article
- Endoscopic Management of Iatrogenic Colon Perforation.Clinical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Endoscopic closure of iatrogenic colon perforation using dual-channel endoscope with an endoloop and clips: methods and feasibility data (with videos).Surgical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Non-exposure simple suturing endoscopic full-thickness resection (NESS-EFTR) versus laparoscopic wedge resection: a randomized controlled trial in a porcine model.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Outcomes of gastrointestinal defect closure with an over-the-scope clip system in a multicenter experience: An analysis of a successful suction method.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Article
- A comparison of two endoscopic closures: over-the-scope clip (OTSC) versus KING closure (endoloop + clips) in a randomized long-term experimental study.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Article
- Comparison of Inflammatory Response to Transgastric and Transcolonic NOTES.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2016Article
- Prospective randomized comparison of gastrotomy closure associating tunnel access and over-the-scope clip (OTSC) with two other methods in an experimental ex vivo setting.Endoscopy international open · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA safe technique is essential for successful access site closure in Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) and for closures of iatrogenic perforations.
aimTo compare an over-the-scope clip (OTSC) versus an endoloop + endoclips closure technique (KING closure).
methods40 minipigs underwent NOTES peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy. Gastrotomies and rectotomies were closed with OTSC (n = 20; 10× stomach, 10× rectum) or KING closure (n = 20; 10× stomach, 10× rectum). The animals were euthanized 28 days after the procedure. The main outcome variables were technical feasibility, effectiveness, and healing.
resultsStomach: All but one closure (KING) was successfully completed. The times of closure were similar between the techniques. At necropsy, all access sites were healed. In two animals (1× KING, 1× OTSC), an abscess, probably related to the closure technique, was found. Histologically, transmural healing with muscular bridging was observable in nine pigs for KING versus two pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.003). Inflammation was present in three pigs for KING versus seven pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.08). Rectum: All closures were successfully completed. The times of closure were similar between the techniques. At necropsy, all closure sites had healed. Transmural healing with muscular bridging was present in nine pigs for KING versus two pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.003). Inflammation was present in two pigs for KING versus seven pigs for OTSC closure (p = 0.03). In one animal (OTSC), an enterocolic fistula developed in the proximity of the closure site.
conclusionsOTSC and KING closure are comparable closure techniques in terms of technical feasibility and effectiveness. KING closure provides a superior histological outcome compared with OTSC closure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23073683What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.