ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Non-exposure simple suturing endoscopic full-thickness resection (NESS-EFTR) versus laparoscopic wedge resection: a randomized controlled trial in a porcine model.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Non-exposure Simple Suturing Endoscopic Full-thickness Resection with Sentinel Basin Dissection in Patients with Early Gastric Cancer: the SENORITA 3 Pilot Study.Journal of gastric cancer · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) methods produce transmural communication and expose the tumor to the peritoneum. An EFTR method with a simple suturing technique that does not expose the gastric mucosa to the peritoneum (non-exposure simple suturing, NESS) was recently developed. To date, there have been no prospective studies that compare EFTR with laparoscopic wedge resection in human or animal. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between NESS-EFTR and laparoscopic wedge resection (LWR) using the linear staplers in a randomized animal study.
methodsNESS-EFTR includes steps of laparoscopic seromuscular suturing, EFTR of the inverted stomach wall, and endoscopic mucosal suturing with endoloops and clips. Sixteen pigs underwent NESS-EFTR (n = 8) or LWR (n = 8). The resected locations were the cardia, fundus, upper body anterior and greater curvature, antrum lesser and greater curvature side. The pigs were killed 3 weeks after surgery. Rates of successful complete resection (en-bloc resection with clear margins), successful closure, and complications were evaluated.
resultsThe complete resection rates in the NESS-EFTR and LWR groups were 100 and 75%, respectively (P = 0.467). All wounds were successfully closed in both groups. Resected tissues were significantly larger in the LWR group (mean ± SD: 8.0 ± 0.8 cm vs. 4.4 ± 0.5 cm, P < 0.001). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the LWR group (31.7 ± 10.0 min vs. 118.1 ± 23.4 min, P < 0.001). Early deaths due to complications only occurred in the LWR group (a leakage at cardia and a stenosis at the antrum lesser curvature side).
conclusionsIncomplete resection and complications were occurred in only LWR group. NESS-EFTR was feasible and safe in animal.
Indexed as
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.