ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Translation from manual to automatic endoscopic insufflation enhanced by a pressure limiter.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. 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, 1 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimal visualization and safety have always been essential in performing any type of endoscopic surgery. However, the safety of automatic gastrointestinal (GI) insufflation has yet to be thoroughly studied, especially when combined with manual insufflation. The current study aimed to verify whether the pressure limiter could lower GI endoluminal pressure during endoscopic procedures and affect the behavioral patterns of endoscopists.
methodsA preclinical blinded trial was conducted on endoscopists who had no knowledge regarding the presence of the pressure limiter that prevents a GI endoluminal pressure above 25 mmHg. Endoscopists in group A performed esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with our insufflation device equipped with the pressure limiter, whereas those in group B performed the same procedure without the pressure limiter. During all procedures, endoluminal pressure was continuously monitored. The primary endpoint of the current study was to measure the endoluminal pressure with or without the pressure limiter during esophageal ESD, while the secondary endpoint was to evaluate the effect of the pressure limiter on intraesophageal pressure and perioperative outcomes during esophageal ESD. A questionnaire survey was conducted after each session.
resultsA total of 79 endoscopists were included in this randomized control study. Group A had significantly lower endoluminal pressure than group B (10.6 ± 4.61 vs. 16.25 ± 7.51 mmHg, respectively; p < 0.05). Although two pigs in group B died from tension pneumothorax, none in group A died. Evaluation of lumen expansion, ease of aspiration, and visual field reproducibility were poorer in group A than in group B, although all fell within the acceptable range. Subjective evaluation of usability was divided into two categories, Excellent/Good and Poor/Bad, with no significant differences in any of the items.
conclusionsThis preclinical study showed that endoscopic treatment with an automatic insufflation system could be performed at lower endoluminal pressure with a pressure limiter, which had no adverse effects on the endoscopist's feels on endoscopic procedures with the device.
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.