Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35201600›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology2022

The usefulness of combining the pocket-creation method with a traction device using a scissor-type knife for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Yuri Tomita, Naohisa Yoshida, Ken Inoue, Hikaru Hashimoto, Satoshi Sugino, Ritsu Yasuda, Ryohei Hirose, Osamu Dohi, Yuji Naito, Takaaki Murakami and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Editorial commentary on the Indian Journal of Gastroenterology-March-April 2022.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yuri TomitaDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan.
Naohisa YoshidaDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan. naohisa@koto.kpu-m.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0001-6167-9705
Ken InoueDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan.
Hikaru HashimotoDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan.
Satoshi SuginoDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan.
Ritsu YasudaDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan.
Ryohei HiroseDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan.
Osamu DohiDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan.
Yuji NaitoDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan.
Takaaki MurakamiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Aiseikai Yamashina Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Yutaka InadaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Japanese Red Cross Society Kyoto Daiichi Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Yukiko MorinagaDepartment of Surgical Pathology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Mitsuo KishimotoDepartment of Surgical Pathology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Yoshito ItohDepartment of Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan.
Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine · JPJapanese Red Cross Society Kyoto Daini Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTechnical issues and long procedure time still remain a concern in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We examined the usefulness of combining the pocket-creation method (PCM) with a traction device (S-O clip; SO) using a scissor-type knife (Clutch Cutter 3.5 mm; CC) for decreasing ESD procedure time.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 95 ESD cases of PCM + SO + CC managed from August 2017 to April 2020 and 103 cases of PCM + CC treated from July 2016 to July 2017. We compared these two groups through propensity score matching. The main outcome was the analysis of the ESD procedure times under various conditions in each group.

resultsAfter matching, 52 cases in the PCM + SO + CC and PCM + CC groups were analyzed. The PCM + SO + CC group showed a significantly shorter ESD procedure time than the PCM + CC group (57.8 ± 31.4 vs. 81.7 ± 33.5 min, p < 0.01). Additionally, the ESD procedure time was significantly shorter in the PCM + SO + CC group than in the PCM + CC group: tumor size (tumor size < 40 mm: 45.6 ± 15.8 vs. 72.7 ± 22.9 min, p < 0.01; tumor size ≥ 40 mm: 83.1 ± 40.1 vs. 111.8 ± 45.3 min, p = 0.04), tumor location (right side: 64.7 ± 33.3 vs. 81.0 ± 29.7 min, p = 0.03; left side: 50.5 ± 28.0 vs. 82.3 ± 36.9 min, p < 0.01), tumor morphology (polypoid: 39.2 ± 18.6 vs. 74.7 ± 28.6 min, p < 0.01; nonpolypoid: 62.3 ± 32.3 vs. 84.5 ± 35.2 min, p < 0.01), endoscopist (expert: 67.3 ± 41.2 vs. 91.9 ± 40.2 min, p = 0.02; nonexpert: 50.4 ± 18.3 vs. 73.6 ± 24.9 min, p < 0.01), and fibrosis (severe fibrosis: 82.0 ± 20.5 vs. 99.8 ± 40.4 min, p = 0.169; non-severe fibrosis: 52.1 ± 23.8 vs. 75.6 ± 29.0 min, p < 0.01).

conclusionsThe combination of the PCM and SO using CC achieved a reduction in the colorectal ESD procedure time.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionFibrosisHumansRetrospective StudiesTractionTreatment OutcomeClutch CutterColorectal cancersColorectal polypsColorectal tumorsEndoscopic resectionEndoscopic submucosal dissectionEndoscopic treatmentScissor-type knifeSevere fibrosisS–O clipTraction device

Identifiers

PMID35201600
OpenAlexW4213445818

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.