ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Safety and location analysis of transumbilical endoscopic submucosal dissection with single-basin lymph node dissection in the upper gastric body: a porcine model.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulley traction in endoscopic submucosal dissection of lesions in the upper two-thirds of the stomach: a retrospective study (with video).Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Clip-and-snare method with a pre-looping technique versus conventional method in the treatment of precancerous lesion and early gastric cancer: a retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Choice of LECS Procedure for Benign and Malignant Gastric Tumors.Journal of gastric cancer · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn our previous study, transumbilical endoscopic submucosal dissection (TU-ESD) was revealed to be feasible, but delayed gastric perforation was observed in 30% of ESD sites. In this study, we aimed to verify locations at which it is feasible to perform TU-ESD in the upper gastric body and to demonstrate the safety of TU-ESD in single-basin lymph node dissection (SBLND).
methodsIn vitro, TU-ESD was performed at three lesion sites (anterior wall, AW; posterior wall, PW; and lesser curvature, LC) in each porcine stomach using an EASIE-R tray (cases = 10). In vivo, TU-ESD was performed with SBLND in 9 pigs. Seven days after the operation, the pigs were sacrificed and examined.
resultsIn the in vitro feasibility study, the TU-ESD time was significantly faster in the PW group (5.9 ± 2.0 min) than in the LC group (8.5 ± 1.5 min) (p < 0.05) in all 10 cases. In the in vivo survival study, TU-ESD with SBLND was successfully performed without any complications (N = 9). There were no cases of delayed perforation, and healing ulcers were found in all pigs 7 days after the operation. Ulcer size (5.2 ± 3.5 cm
conclusionsTU-ESD with SBLND is a feasible and safe method. The upper posterior gastric body could be the most feasible location for performing TU-ESD, perhaps because of the difference in the subcutaneous dissection time.
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.