ArticleBMC gastroenterology2019
Endoscopic full-thickness resection using an over-the-scope device for treatment of recurrent / residual colorectal neoplasia: a single-center case series.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adverse events associated with full-thickness resection devices in gastrointestinal endoscopy: National postmarketing surveillance study.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Article
- Endoscopic strategies for the management of locally recurrent colorectal adenomas.Annals of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Efficacy of the pocket-creation method with a traction device in endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual or recurrent colorectal lesions.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Long-term follow-up after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in 182 cases.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Small type O-IIa de novo colon cancer treated with curative endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR).Techniques in coloproctology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in piecemeal technique is the treatment standard for larger flat or sessile colorectal lesions. The method is burdened by a high recurrence rate mostly presenting as difficult to resect lesions. In these situations, endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) with an over-the-scope device offers the option of complete resection despite scar formation.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective case review of 30 consecutive EFTR interventions on small (< 20 mm), difficult to resect recurrent / residual colorectal neoplastic lesions treated by EFTR.
resultsEFTR was technically feasible in 28/30 (93,3%) of the cases with an R0 resection in 24/30 (80%) and a median procedure time (marking to full thickness resection) of 34,5 min (11-120). After the first 15 procedures, the per-protocol rate increased from 13/15 to 15/15 and the R0 resection rate increased from 9/15 (69,2%) to 15/15 (100,0%; p < 0.01). One patient suffered from a delayed perforation the day after the procedure and needed emergency surgery (3,6%). Minor bleeding occurred in 3/28 patients (10,7%) and post-interventional fever in one patient (3,6%). The 30-day mortality rate was 0%.
conclusionsEFTR with an over-the-scope device is a useful method for endoscopic resection of difficult to treat recurrent or residual colorectal neoplasia after previous endoscopic therapy. High R0 resection rates were observed after a relatively short learning curve. The complication rate in this series seems acceptable given the complexity of the resected lesions.
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.