ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2019
Comparison Between Submucosal Tunneling Endoscopic Resection (STER) and Other Resection Modules for Esophageal Muscularis Propria Tumors: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Submucosal Tunneling Endoscopic Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Esophageal Submucosal Tumors: A Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Submucosal Tunneling Endoscopic Resection for Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Thoracoscopic versus endoscopic resection for esophageal leiomyoma: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Defining the role of endoscopic resection for esophageal gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Feasibility and Safety of Submucosal Tunneling Endoscopic Resection in One Tunnel for Multiple Esophageal Submucosal Tumors Originating from the Muscularis Propria Layer.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Feasibility and safety of endoscopic resection for cardial submucosal tumors more than 30 mm in diameter.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Expanding the role of endoscopic resection in esophageal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Insights and challenges.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Preventive wound drainage reduces esophageal fistula or infection after endoscopic resection of giant submucosal tumors in the esophagus.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for subepithelial tumors in the upper GI tract: a systematic review and meta-analysis of >2900 patients.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2023Article
- Updates in the Field of Submucosal Endoscopy.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Lymph node metastasis pattern and significance of left gastric artery lymph node dissection in esophagectomy for esophageal cancers.World journal of surgical oncology · 2021Article
- Feasibility and Safety of Mark-Guided Submucosal Tunneling Endoscopic Resection for Treatment of Esophageal Submucosal Tumors Originating from the Muscularis Propria: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2021Article
- Recent advances in third space or intramural endoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020Review
- Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in semi-prone position utilising direct endobronchial intubation for oesophagus leiomyoma excision.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
- Performance of endoscopic submucosal dissection and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for esophageal submucosal tumors: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgery has been considered to be the primary approach for resection of esophageal muscularis propria tumors. With the development of endoscopic technology, new techniques such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) have emerged for resecting these lesions. Previous studies have demonstrated that STER might be an intriguing alternative. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical value of STER by comparing it to other resecting modules. MATERIAL AND METHODS Clinical outcome and data were retrospectively collected from patients with esophageal muscularis propria tumors who underwent resection either endoscopically or thoracoscopically. The clinical data were statistically analyzed. RESULTS A total of 137 patients were enrolled. They were divided into 3 groups: a STER group (27 patients), an ESD group (42 patients), and a thoracoscopic enucleation (TE) group (68 patients). There were no significant differences among the 3 groups in gender, age, pathological type of tumors, or major adverse events (P>0.05). However, the STER group had the shortest duration of hospitalization and the lowest cost (P<0.05). Furthermore, the STER group was superior in operation time and the location of tumors to the TE group. Moreover, STER outperformed ESD in the resection of large tumors (P<0.05). Although STER had the lowest en bloc resection rate, no recurrence or metastasis was noted during a mean follow-up of 22.14 months (range 3 to 60 months). CONCLUSIONS STER is a feasible, safe, and effective approach for the resection of esophageal muscularis propria tumors ≤40 mm. We recommend STER as a potent alternative for these tumors.
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.