ArticleClinical endoscopy2019
Efficacy of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Esophageal Neoplasms under General Anesthesia.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing general anaesthesia versus sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis.Anaesthesiology intensive therapy · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy of Overtube in Preventing Aspiration Pneumonia During Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.DEN open · 2027Article
- Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of General Anesthesia and Sedation Management for Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Retrospective Study.JMA journal · 2026Article
- Underwater Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection under General Anesthesia for Superficial Esophageal Carcinoma.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Characteristics of cases for which esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection under general anesthesia is recommended.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2025Article
- Gel immersion endoscopic submucosal dissection: clinical experience with 13 cases of superficial esophageal cancer.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Endoscopic resection of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Current indications and treatment outcomes.DEN open · 2022Review
- Perforation of a Gastric Tear during Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection under General Anesthesia.Clinical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Bilateral tension pneumothorax during endoscopic submucosal dissection under general anesthesia diagnosed by point-of-care ultrasound - A case report.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2021Article
- Feasibility of the lidocaine injection method during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2020Article
- Commentary on "Efficacy of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Esophageal Neoplasms under General Anesthesia".Clinical endoscopy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsEvidence that general anesthesia (GA) reduces the operative time of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is currently insufficient. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of esophageal ESD under GA.
methodsA total of 227 lesions from 198 consecutive patients with superficial esophageal neoplasms treated by ESD at 3 Japanese institutions between April 2011 and September 2017 were included in this retrospective study. For ESD, GA and deep sedation (DS) were used in 102 (51.5%, GA group) and 96 patients (48.5%, DS group), respectively.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences in age, sex, or comorbidities between the groups. In the GA group, the tumor size was larger (21 [3-77] mm vs. 14 [3-63] mm, p<0.001), luminal circumference was larger (≥2/3; 13.9% vs. 5.4%, p=0.042), procedure time was shorter (28 [5-202] min vs. 40 [8-249] min, p<0.001), and submucosal dissection speed was faster (25.2 [7.8-157.2] mm2 /min vs. 16.2 [2.4-41.3] mm2 /min, p<0.001). The rates of intraoperative perforation and aspiration pneumonia were lower in the GA group, but the difference did not achieve statistical significance (p=0.242 and p=0.242).
conclusionGA shortens the procedure time of esophageal ESD.
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.