ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using novel articulating devices: a comparative study in a live porcine model.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distal mechanisms in robotic surgical instruments: a structured review of surgical access, miniaturisation constraints and procedure-specific performance trade-offs.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Efficacy of robot arm-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection in live porcine stomach (with video).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A novel postgraduate endoscopic course using a large animal model of secondary Crohn's disease stricture.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Surgical Robot for Intraluminal Access: AnCyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsColonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is time-consuming and bears a high risk of perforation. The aim of the present study was to compare the safety and efficacy between novel articulating devices and conventional ESD in live porcine colon models.
methodsThirty ESDs in ten pigs were carried out at three different locations (15, 25, and 35 cm from the anus) by the conventional method (n = 15) and by the new method (n = 15). Procedure times, adverse events (perforation, bleeding), and damage to the muscular layer were recorded, and the ESD time per unit area of the specimens was calculated.
resultsThe perforation rate using the conventional method was 6.7% (1/15), whereas that using the new method was 0.0%. The number of sites of muscular damage was significantly lower in the new than conventional method (6 vs. 37, respectively; P = 0.024). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the new than conventional method (4.6 ± 2.0 vs. 7.0 ± 4.1 min/cm
conclusionsUse of the new ESD method allows for reduced adverse events and a shortened resection time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30187199What 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.