ArticleDEN open2023
Electrosurgical knife with the water-jet function of tip-type during endoscopic treatment injection.
Article in DEN open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of a needle-type knife that injects fluid through its tip compared with a conventional needle-injection knife for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a randomized controlled trial (with video).Surgical endoscopy · 2026Trial
- Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Using a Single Multifunctional Knife With a High-Pressure Waterjet System.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026Article
- The Current Landscape of Endoscopic Submucosal Training in the United States.Current gastroenterology reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to objectively evaluate the water-jet-functioned electrosurgical knife injection performances in a desktop experiment. Methods: Five types of water-jet-functioned electrosurgical knives, including two injection styles of sheath-type (A: DualKnife J, KD-655L; B: FlushKnife, DK2620-J-B20S; C: Splash M-Knife, DN-D2718B; D: ISSEN, SN1650-20) and tip-type (E: ORISE ProKnife, M00519361) were evaluated. These knives were compared with an injection needle (Control: SuperGrip 25G) as a control. The injection speed under constant pressure and the injection efficiency for each knife against prepared porcine stomach mucosa were evaluated. The additional clear gel injections using an injection needle were observed using an indigo blue-colored gel to evaluate the difference between the locations of water-jet holes. Results: Four types of knives, except for A, showed significantly higher water-jet speeds (A: 0.79 ± 0.03 g/20 s, B: 2.56 ± 0.05 g/20 s, C: 3.09 ± 0.06 g/20 s, D: 2.86 ± 0.05 g/20 s, and E: 1.79 ± 0.03 g/20 s) compared to that of the control (1.21 ± 0.03 g/20 s). Meanwhile, significantly higher efficacy of injection was found in the tip-type water-jet function knife, second to the injection needle (Control: 37.2% ± 35.5%, A: 20.9% ± 20.2%, B: 1.1% ± 2.2%, C: 6.2% ± 12.6%, D: 12.5% ± 15.6%, and E: 33.3% ± 32.2%). An additional injection experiment revealed that the injection with a piercing tip into the gel could achieve sufficient additional injection inside the stacked clear gel. Conclusions: The tip-type water-jet function electrosurgical knife is preferable for effective submucosal injection during endoscopic treatments.
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.