ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
An internal magnet traction device reduces procedure time for endoscopic submucosal dissection by expert and non-expert endoscopists: ex vivo study in a porcine colorectal model (with video).
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 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection with Rubber Bands and Clips Compared to Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Facilitating Techniques Among Non-experts: A Systematic Literature Review.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Sequential injection-electrocoagulation vs. traditional electrocoagulation haemostasis during endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Trial
- Efficacy and prognosis analysis of pulley traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection with dental floss for early gastric cancer and precancerous lesions.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of traction vs. snare as rescue methods for challenging colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Propensity score-matched study.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Development of therapeutic digestive endoscopy robots: a narrative review.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2024Review
- Efficacy of robot arm-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection in live porcine stomach (with video).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Novel beagle model of gastric local fibrotic target lesions for the evaluation and training of endoscopic techniques.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Comparison of efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and conventional ESD for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical difficulty: a retrospective case-control study.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Training program using a traction device improves trainees' learning curve of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Multi-loop traction device facilitates gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: ex vivo pilot study and an inaugural clinical experience.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEfficacy of an internal magnet traction device (MTD) for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) by an expert endoscopist has been reported. We hypothesized that use of the MTD would enhance the performance of colorectal ESD in a non-expert endoscopist in ESD compared to the conventional technique. Primary aim of this study was to compare procedure times between conventional ESD (C-ESD) and MTD-assisted ESD (MTD-ESD) by expert and non-expert endoscopists in ESD. Secondary aims included rate of en bloc resection, iatrogenic injury, visualization score of the submucosal layer, and endoscopist satisfaction score.
methodsA total of 56 lesions were created in an ex vivo porcine colorectum. Two endoscopists completed C-ESD (n = 28) and MTD-ESD (n = 28). Lesions measured 3 cm in diameter and were located on either the anterior or posterior colorectal wall. The MTD consisted of a small neodymium magnet and nylon monofilament attached to a through-the-scope clip. The first MTD was deployed on the opposing colorectal wall of the target lesion and a second MTD was then deployed directly onto the distal margin of the lesion.
resultsTotal procedure time for MTD-ESD was significantly shorter than C-ESD for both expert (median: 15.8 vs. 19.3 min, p < 0.05) and non-expert (median: 21.3 vs. 33.9 min, p < 0.001) endoscopists. All lesions were resected en bloc. There was no iatrogenic muscularis propria injury in the MTD-ESD group. For both the expert and non-expert, scores for MTD-ESD were significantly higher for submucosal layer visualization (p < 0.05) and endoscopist satisfaction (p < 0.001) compared to C-ESD.
conclusionsUse of the MTD significantly reduced procedure time for both expert and non-expert endoscopists performing ESD. Improving the efficiency, safety, and satisfaction of ESD with such a device particularly for non-expert endoscopists is appealing and could potentially minimize the complexity and duration of the procedure allowing for more widespread use of the technique.
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.