ArticleDEN open2022
A novel, simple, and dedicated device for endoscopic mucosal defect closure.
Article in DEN open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic closure using a dedicated device following gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: Multicenter, prospective, observational pilot study.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Adaption of novel clip-closure technique for large mucosal defects after EMR of a colon laterally spreading tumor using standard hemostatic clips.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become popular, but complications such as postoperative bleeding remain an issue. Although some methods of closing a mucosal defect with a snare and clips have been reported to be effective and safe, the snare is not a dedicated device, and the procedure is difficult and time-consuming. We aimed to find an alternative method for defect closure after ESD by developing a dedicated device. Methods: We have improved five prototypes. The load on the stopper when starting to tighten and loosen a loop and the maximum load on the stopper and the movement distance of the thread when sliding the stopper were measured five times for each prototype. With the 5th prototype, we finalized the design and named it FLEXLOOP. Additionally, the material and shape of the outer tube were improved. Then, the usability of FLEXLOOP was evaluated in pigs. The operation time for closing mucosal defects with the snare or FLEXLOOP was measured five times. Results: We made FLEXLOOP, which had a lower load when sliding and a higher load when loosening than the snare. The improvement of the outer tube significantly reduced the load on the sheath when sliding it. We confirmed the feasibility of mucosal defect closure with FLEXLOOP in pigs. The median operation time was 563 s (range 340-679 s) with the snare and 355 s (range 303-455 s) with FLEXLOOP ( Conclusions: FLEXLOOP can be a promising option for defect closure after ESD.
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.