Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30353242›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019

Efficacy and safety of an internal magnet traction device for endoscopic submucosal dissection: ex vivo study in a porcine model (with video).

Akira Dobashi, Andrew C Storm, Louis M Wong Kee Song, Christopher J Gostout, Jodie L Deters, Charles A Miller, Mary A Knipschield, Elizabeth Rajan

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Akira DobashiDevelopmental Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Andrew C StormDevelopmental Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Louis M Wong Kee SongDevelopmental Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Christopher J GostoutDevelopmental Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Jodie L DetersDevelopmental Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Charles A MillerDevelopmental Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Mary A KnipschieldDevelopmental Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Elizabeth RajanDevelopmental Endoscopy Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. rajan.elizabeth16@mayo.edu.
Mayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAppropriate traction allows for safer and easier endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an internal magnet traction device (MTD) for ESD in an ex vivo porcine model.

methodsThe MTD consisted of a small neodymium magnet and a suture attached to a through-the-scope clip. A circumferential mucosal incision was completed around a 30-mm diameter template that served as the target lesion. The first MTD was deployed at the proximal edge of the lesion. A second MTD was deployed on the wall opposite the lesion. With both magnets connected, this created traction or lifting of the target lesion towards the opposing wall during submucosal dissection. Primary endpoint was comparison of submucosal dissection times between conventional ESD (C-ESD) and MTD-assisted ESD (MTD-ESD).

resultsTwenty lesions along the anterior wall, posterior wall and greater curvature were resected using either C-ESD or MTD-ESD. The submucosal dissection time in MTD-ESD was significantly shorter than C-ESD (median: 6.4 [interquartile range {IQR} 4.6-8.7] min vs. 14.4 min [IQR 11.8-18.0], p < 0.05). There was a significant difference between MTD-ESD and C-ESD in total procedure times for lesions on the posterior gastric wall and greater curvature (median: 23.0 min [IQR 21.1-24.5] vs. 29.2 min [IQR 24.8-33.2], p < 0.05) with no difference for lesions on the anterior gastric wall (median: 18.8 min [IQR 15.5-20.5] vs. 17.1 min [IQR 13.1-20.0], p = 0.5). The number of muscularis propria injuries per lesion was significantly lower in MTD-ESD than C-ESD (median: 0 [IQR 0-0] vs. 1 [IQR 0-2], p < 0.05).

conclusionsMTD for ESD is effective and safe when compared to C-ESD. This approach significantly reduced submucosal dissection times with less injury to the muscularis propria. Furthermore, MTD-ESD was particularly beneficial for more challenging gastric lesions located on the posterior wall and greater curvature.

Indexed as

Endoscopic Mucosal ResectionMagnetsAnimalsMargins of ExcisionModels, AnatomicNeodymiumStomach NeoplasmsSuture TechniquesSwineTreatment OutcomeNeodymiumEndoscopic submucosal dissectionInternalMagnetPorcineStomachTraction

Identifiers

PMID30353242
OpenAlexW2897582323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.