ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020
Technical feasibility of a newly designed bendable forceps for difficult endoscopic tissue samplings (with video).
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiopsies with conventional forceps beyond the operating range are difficult and cumbersome. Thus, we developed a new bendable forceps for improved access to gastrointestinal lesions and evaluated its technical feasibility.
methodsA bendable forceps was constructed with two channels and a two-stage knob. The bending motion-related structures were designed to improve the range of motion. For the evaluation of the forceps, we used 2 gastrointestinal simulators: an ex vivo porcine model, and an in vivo porcine model with some difficult endoscopic biopsy cases. All evaluations were performed by 5 expert endoscopists and an expert pathologist.
resultsCompared with the conventional forceps, the bendable forceps had greater efficacy in the simulator (6.2 ± 0.4 vs. 1.96 ± 0.2, p < 0.001), ex vivo porcine model (6.33 ± 0.52 vs. 4.25 ± 0.89, p < 0.001), and in vivo porcine model (6.33 ± 0.52 vs. 4.25 ± 0.89, p < 0.001); greater safety in the simulator (1.92 ± 0.13 s vs. 4.88 ± 0.50 s, p < 0.001), ex vivo porcine model (2.02 ± 0.15 s vs 4.66 ± 0.27 s, p < 0.001), and in vivo porcine model (2.02 ± 0.15 s vs. 4.08 ± 0.70 s, p = 0.002); and larger specimens in the ex vivo porcine model (3.92 ± 0.03 mm vs. 3.85 ± 0.07 mm, p = 0.020).
conclusionsThis study showed that compared with the conventional forceps, the bendable forceps was effective and safe to use for accessing difficult lesions in the three models. We believe that the bendable forceps serves as a useful supplementary diagnostic tool for accessing difficult lesions. However, further validation of its usefulness in the human body is needed.
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.