ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
The feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions larger than 10 cm.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Save the injection needle for colorectal ESD: a multicenter feasibility study of the needleless injection technique using short-tip endoknife.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- A >30-cm circumferential rectal laterally spreading tumor treated with multitunnel endoscopic submucosal dissection and suturing.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2026Article
- Time Prediction Accuracy and Influencing Factors in Colorectal ESD by Trainees: A Mixed-Model Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Comparative efficacy and safety of injection mucosa knife versus conventional techniques in endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal laterally spreading tumors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effects of integrated management on surgical outcomes and mental health of patients following endoscopic submucosal dissection.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Outcomes in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection for large protruded lesions: A retrospective multicenter study.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Feasibility and Safety of Endoscopic Control for Patients with Serrated Polyposis Syndrome.Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The feasibility of endoscopic resection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en bloc removal of colorectal neoplasms, its effectiveness for larger lesions (≥ 10 cm in diameter) is undetermined. We aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of ESD for colorectal lesions ≥ 10 cm wide.
methodsThis retrospective study included 3591 consecutive colorectal lesions managed with ESD from June 2012 through December 2020. Clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes were compared between lesions ≥ 10 cm wide and lesions 5-10 cm wide.
resultsThere were 50 patients in the ≥ 10 cm group and 270 patients in the 5-10 cm group. Among patients in the ≥ 10 cm group, lesions were most often in the rectum (50.0%), and the laterally spreading tumor-granular nodular mixed type (LST-G-M) was most prevalent (41/50, 82%). Although patients in the ≥ 10 cm group a longer mean ESD procedure time (186.0 vs. 94.4 min, p < 0.001), the dissection speed was significantly higher in this group (0.50 vs. 0.41 cm
conclusionsESD for colorectal lesions ≥ 10 cm wide is feasible and curative, even though it is associated with higher technical difficulty and longer procedure times compared with ESD for smaller lesions (Number: UMIN 000044313).
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.