ArticleEndoscopy international open2018
Electromagnetic assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection is more efficient than water-jet assisted and conventional ESD in experimental model.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Facilitating Techniques Among Non-experts: A Systematic Literature Review.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Pooled it
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsThe adequate visualization of the dissection line, inside the submucosal layer, supposes the main challenging issue in ESD. For this reason, several counter traction methods have been developed focused on overcoming this handicap. One of which, Magnetic anchor guided - ESD (MG-ESD) is an attractive alternative. However, the usefulness of this approach has been scarcely assessed and compared with other ESD strategies. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare three different ESD alternatives in experimental faction.
methodsThis was a prospective non-randomized study, in which three different ESD techniques were performed in an ex-vivo gastric porcine model by an endoscopist slight expertise in ESD: conventional ESD, waterjet assisted ESD and MG-ESD. MG-ESD was performed using two different magnets: inner Neodymiun ringed shape magnet attached to the simulated lesions by an endoclip and external electromagnet connected to a Single Output Adjustable 24V/0.3A Power Supply Unit.
resultsForty-six ESD procedures were performed: 24 conventional ESD, 12 waterjet-assisted ESD and 10 MG-ESD. Average size of the simulated lesions was 33.86 mm. No differences in terms of safety and efficacy were registered between the three approaches. Nevertheless, MG-ESD proved to be faster and more efficient than conventional ESD and water-jet assisted ESD (min per cm
conclusionsMG-ESD could be a feasible alternative to conventional ESD even at the beginning of the learning curve. Therefore, researches focused on developing appropriate ESD magnetic devices and further comparative studies must be promoted, in order to assess the reliable usefulness of the magnet-assistance in ESD.
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.