ArticleEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2022
Factors of technical difficulty in conventional and traction-assisted esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Article in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of esophageal submucosal tumors treated with internal traction method-assisted submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection: a single-center, single-blind, randomized controlled study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Trial
- Efficacy of Overtube in Preventing Aspiration Pneumonia During Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.DEN open · 2027Article
- Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of General Anesthesia and Sedation Management for Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Retrospective Study.JMA journal · 2026Article
- A prediction score model of difficult endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal cancer and precancerous lesions.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- The application effect of rubber band traction assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal precancerous lesions.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Successful perforation management during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection using the stent-anchoring method: A case report.DEN open · 2025Article
- Characteristics of cases for which esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection under general anesthesia is recommended.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2025Article
- Characteristics of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinomas Based on Circumferential Localization.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
- Long- vs short-segment Barrett's esophagus-derived adenocarcinoma: clinical features and outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial ultra-low rectal tumors: outcomes and predictive factors for procedure difficulty.American journal of cancer research · 2024Article
- Predictors of technical difficulty for trainees in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2024Article
- The relationship between the esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection technical difficulty and its intraoperative process.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe traction assisted (TA) method has reduced the technical difficulty associated with esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). However, it is unclear which factors associated with difficulty have been improved by the TA-ESD method. We aimed to evaluate and compare difficulty factors between conventional and TA-ESD.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled patients treated by ESD from Apr 2010 to Jun 2014 for the conventional ESD cohort and from Jan 2016 to Dec 2019 for the TA-ESD cohort. Difficult cases were defined as; (1) ≥ 120 min ESD procedure time, (2) intraoperative perforation, or (3) piecemeal resection. We explored and compared the factors associated with technical difficulty in each cohort.
resultsThe conventional and TA-ESD cohorts included 285 (299 lesions) and 387 (421 lesions) patients, respectively. For difficult cases, the conventional and TA-ESD cohorts had 91 (30%) and 71 (17%) lesions, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression showed that ≥ 30 mm lesion length (odds ratio (OR) 6.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.47-13.50), lower esophagus (OR 2.37, 95% Cl 1.34-4.21), > 1/2 circumference (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.28-3.99), and left wall (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.42-5.20) in the conventional ESD cohort, and ≥ 30 mm lesion length (21.30, 95% CI 4.75-95.30), lower esophagus (OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.52-6.13), and > 1/2 circumference (OR 6.40, 95% CI 3.06-13.40) in the TA-ESD cohort, were independently associated with technical difficulty.
conclusionsTA-ESD can reduce the difficulty in cases including lesions in the left wall; however, cases in the lower esophagus and large lesions were still difficult to simplify.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35235089What 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.