ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided puncture suture device versus metal clip for gastric defect closure after endoscopic full-thickness resection: A randomized, comparative, porcine study.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe secure closure of the wall defect is a critical stage of endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). The aim of this study was to compare the closure of post-EFTR defects using an endoscopic ultrasound-guided puncture suture device (PSD) with the metal clip (MC) technique in a randomized, comparative, porcine study.
methodsWe performed a randomized comparative survival study that included 18 pigs. The circular EFTR defects with a diameter of approximately 20 mm were closed with either a PSD or MC. Serum levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) were determined preoperatively and on a postoperative day (POD) 1, 3, and 7. Three animals from each group were sacrificed at the end of the 7 th , 14 th , and 30 th POD. Tissue samples retrieved from the closure sites were examined macroscopically and microscopically.
resultsResection and closure were performed in 18 pigs (100%) without major perioperative complications. The mean closure time was significantly longer in the MC group than in the PSD group (25.00 ± 3.16 min vs. 1.56 ± 0.39 min; P < 0.05). Preoperative and POD 7 serum levels of IL-6 did not differ between the two groups. However, on POD 1, the IL-6 levels were observed to be significantly greater in the MC group than in the PSD group (P < 0.005). No significant differences between the PSD and MC groups were observed at necropsy.
conclusionIn this in vivo porcine model, PSD is a feasible device that achieves post-EFTR defect closure with a much shorter closure time and with less immunological responses than the MC technique.
Identifiers
What 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.