ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Technical success, resection status, and procedural complication rate of colonoscopic full-wall resection: a pooled analysis from 7 hospitals of different care levels.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- NANETS Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of stage I-III rectal neuroendocrine tumors.Endocrine-related cancer · 2026Guideline
- Clinical Outcomes of Colorectal Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection Using the Full-Thickness Resection Device: A Multicenter Study.DEN open · 2027Article
- Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection Device (FTRDDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Unexpected clipping failure of a full-thickness resection device during endoscopic full-thickness resection.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2024Article
- AI-2 quorum sensing controlled delivery of cytolysin-A by tryptophan auxotrophic low-endotoxic Salmonella and its anticancer effects in CT26 mice with colon cancer.Journal of advanced research · 2024Article
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Subepithelial Lesion in the Cecum: Granular Cell Tumor.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Closure of full-thickness perforations in porcine stomach using 20-mm reopenable clips.Endoscopy · 2023Article
- Full-thickness resection device for management of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
- Review
- Prophylactic appendiceal retrograde intraluminal stent placement (PARIS).VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEndoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD®) is a novel minimally invasive procedure that allows the resection of various lesions in the gastrointestinal tract including the colorectum. Real-world data outside of published studies are limited. The aim of this study was a detailed analysis of the outcomes of colonoscopic eFTR in different hospitals from different care levels in correlation with the number of endoscopists performing eFTR. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this case series, the data of all patients who underwent eFTR between November 2014 and June 2019 (performed by a total of 22 endoscopists) in 7 hospitals were analyzed retrospectively regarding rates of technical success, R0 resection, and procedure-related complications.
resultsColonoscopic eFTR was performed in 229 patients (64.6% men; average age 69.3 ± 10.3 years) mainly on the basis of the following indication: 69.9% difficult adenomas, 21.0% gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas, and 7.9% subepithelial tumors. The average size of the lesions was 16.3 mm. Technical success rate of eFTR was achieved in 83.8% (binominal confidence interval 78.4-88.4%). Overall, histologically complete resection (R0) was achieved in 77.2% (CI 69.8-83.6%) while histologically proven full-wall excidate was confirmed in 90.0% (CI 85.1-93.7%). Of the resectates obtained (n = 210), 190 were resected en bloc (90.5%). We did not observe a clear improvement of technical success and R0 resection rate over time by the performing endoscopists. Altogether, procedure-related complications were observed in 17.5% (mostly moderate) including 2 cases of acute gangrenous appendicitis requiring operation. DISCUSSION: In this pooled analysis, eFTR represents a feasible, effective, and safe minimally invasive endoscopic 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.