Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35851820›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

Endoscopic clips versus overstitch suturing system device for mucosotomy closure after peroral endoscopic pyloromyotomy (G-POEM): a prospective single-center study.

R Hustak, Z Vackova, J Krajciova, J Spicak, E Kieslichova, J Mares, Jan Martinek

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Third-space endoscopy: the final frontier.Gastroenterology report · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

R HustakInstitute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8669-9024
Z VackovaInstitute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic.
J KrajciovaInstitute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic.
J SpicakInstitute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic.
E KieslichovaInstitute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic.
J MaresInstitute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jan MartinekInstitute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. jan.martinek@volny.cz.
Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine · CZCharles University · CZUniversity of Ostrava · CZUniversity of Trnava · SK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsG-POEM is an emerging method for treatment of severe gastroparesis. Safe mucosal closure is necessary to avoid adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two closure methods: clips and endoscopic suturing (ES) after G-POEM.

methodsWe performed a single center, prospective study. The closure method was assigned at the discretion of an endoscopist prior to the procedure. The main outcome was the proportion of subjects with successful closure. Unsuccessful closure was defined as a need for a rescue method, or a need for an additional intervention or incomplete closure-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were the easiness of closure (VAS score 1 = very difficult, 10 = easy), closure time, and cost.

resultsA total of 40 patients [21 female; mean age, range 47.5; (20-74)] were included; 20 received ES and 20 clips [mean number of clips 6; range (4-19)]. All 20 patients with ES (100%, 95% CI 84-100%) and 18 patients with clips (89%, 95% CI 70-97%) had successful closure (p = 0.49). One patient needed a rescue method (KING closure) and the other patient an additional clipping on POD1. Closure with clips was quicker [mean time 9.8 (range 4-20) min vs. 14.1 (5-21) min; p = 0.007] and cheaper [mean cost 807 USD (± 402) vs. 2353 USD (± 145); p < 0.001]. Endoscopist assessed the easiness of ES and clips as comparable [mean VAS, range 7.5 (3-10) (ES) vs. 6.9 (3-10) (clips); p = 0.3].

conclusionsBoth ES and clips are effective methods for mucosal closure in patients undergoing G-POEM. However, centres using clips should have a rescue closure method available as clips may fail in some patients. Closure with ES is more costly than with clips.

Indexed as

Esophageal AchalasiaGastroparesisPyloromyotomyEndoscopyFemaleHumansProspective StudiesSurgical InstrumentsTreatment OutcomeEndoscopic pyloromyotomyGastroparesisMucosotomy

Identifiers

PMID35851820
OpenAlexW4285726483

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.