ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Factors for conversion risk of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter study.
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 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Comparison Between Low- and High-Concentration Injection Solution Ability for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Trial
- Prospective randomized trial comparing conventional and underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial colorectal neoplasms.Endoscopy · 2025Trial
- Clinical Outcomes of Rubber-clip-assisted Versus Conventional Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Retrospective Study.DEN open · 2027Article
- Impact of Sarcopenia on Elderly Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Resection: Scoping Review.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Article
- Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Acute Kidney Injury: A Rare but Clinically Relevant Adverse Event, a Cohort Study of 1537 Patients.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Risk Factors, Clinical Course, and Management of Delayed Perforation After Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Large-Scale Multicenter Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Outcome and predictive factors for perforation in orthodontic rubber band-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection of fibrotic colorectal lesions.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Robotic Platforms for Therapeutic Flexible Endoscopy: A Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Planned Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as Alternative for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
- Predicting procedure duration of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection at Western endoscopy centers.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
- Management of complications related to colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Review
- Device-assisted traction methods in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection and options for difficult cases.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023Review
- Robotic-assisted vs non-robotic traction techniques in endoscopic submucosal dissection for malignant gastrointestinal lesions.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Delayed Perforation of Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Treated by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage.Case reports in gastroenterologyArticle
- Conventional versus hybrid knife endoscopic submucosal dissection in large colorectal laterally spreading tumors: A propensity score analysis.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a widely accepted treatment method for colorectal tumors; however, there are some persistent problems. This multi-center study aimed to characterize the risk factors for incomplete resection and perforation in standardized colorectal ESD procedures.
methodsThis study included 2423 consecutive patients who underwent ESD for 2592 colorectal tumors between August 2013 and December 2018 at 11 institutions (1 academic hospital and 10 affiliated hospitals) from the Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group. We evaluated the risk factors for interruption, piecemeal resection, and perforation of standardized colorectal ESD in relation to clinicopathologic and endoscopic characteristics.
resultsThe incidences of interruption, piecemeal resection, and perforation were 0.7%, 2.9%, and 3.0%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified the following risk factors for interruption: perforation during the procedure, deep submucosal invasion (> 1000 μm), poor scope operability, and severe submucosal fibrosis. The risk factors for piecemeal resection included poor scope operability, severe submucosal fibrosis, and procedure time (≥ 85 min). The risk factors for perforation during the procedure were severe submucosal fibrosis, poor scope operability, procedure time (≥ 85 min), and tumor size (≥ 40 mm). Independent risk factors for severe submucosal fibrosis included a history of biopsy and lesions located on the fold or flexure.
conclusionsSevere submucosal fibrosis and poor scope operability are the common risk factors for interruption, piecemeal resection, and perforation in standardized colorectal ESD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35579699What 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.