Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33910849›Full record

ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)

Pocket Creation and Ring-thread Traction Facilitates Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Non-experts.

Ayako Fujimori, Noriko Nishiyama, Hideki Kobara, Kazuhiro Koduka, Naoya Tada, Takanori Matsui, Taiga Chiyo, Nobuya Kobayashi, Shintaro Fujihara, Tatsuo Yachida and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Ayako FujimoriDepartment of Gastroenterology and Neurology, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Noriko NishiyamaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Neurology, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Hideki KobaraDepartment of Gastroenterology and Neurology, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan kobara@med.kagawa-u.ac.jp.
Kazuhiro KodukaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Neurology, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Naoya TadaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Neurology, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Takanori MatsuiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Neurology, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Taiga ChiyoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Neurology, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Nobuya KobayashiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Neurology, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Shintaro FujiharaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Neurology, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Tatsuo YachidaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Neurology, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Keiichi OkanoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Yasuyuki SuzukiDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Daisuke NakanoDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Akira NishiyamaDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.
Tsutomu MasakiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Neurology, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimColorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a difficult technique. Counter-traction may facilitate the procedure but its efficacy in non-experts remains unclear. We determined the safety and efficacy of pocket creation and ring-thread traction (PRM) for non-expert colorectal ESD. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe retrospectively compared patients who underwent conventional colorectal ESD (C-group, n=50) or PRM (pocket creation, whole-circumferential cutting, ring-thread traction, submucosal dissection; PRM-group, n=48). All procedures were performed by four non-experts, each with ≤40 experiences of colorectal ESD.

resultsProcedural time was significantly shorter in the PRM-group compared with the C-group (p=0.007), with less additional device usage (p<0.001). There also tended to be fewer perforation incidents and muscle injuries in the PRM-group. There were no significant differences in en bloc or R0 resection rates between the groups.

conclusionPRM may be a safe, useful, and cost-effective technique for non-experts learning to perform colorectal ESD.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionHumansRetrospective StudiesTractionTreatment Outcomecounter tractionearly colorectal cancerEndoscopic submucosal dissectiontrainee

Identifiers

PMID33910849
PMCPMC8193342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.