ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal polyps: outcome determining factors.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Traction-assisted versus conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
- Risk Factors of Post-ESD Electrocoagulation Syndrome for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Systematic Review and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Local lesion characteristics rather than H. pylori infection status predict endoscopic submucosal dissection bleeding: a large, confounder-adjusted study and a revised perspective.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Endorobotic submucosal dissection using the da Vinci SP system: a 101-case experience in robotic transanal surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Prediction of delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection in early gastric cancer and precancerous lesions by BEST-C score.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A predictive nomogram for hemorrhage risk following endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastrointestinal tumors: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Defect closure after endoscopic submucosal dissection decreased the adverse events in patients with large rectal neoplasms: a propensity score matching analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Risk Factors for Perforation in Endoscopic Treatment for Early Colorectal Cancer: A Nationwide ENTER-K Study.Gut and liver · 2025Article
- Submucosal fibrosis in large colorectal serrated lesions in cases receiving endoscopic submucosal dissection.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Comparison of traction vs. snare as rescue methods for challenging colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Propensity score-matched study.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Outcome and predictive factors for perforation in orthodontic rubber band-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection of fibrotic colorectal lesions.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A novel nomogram for the prediction of perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2024Article
- Planned Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as Alternative for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
- Management of complications related to colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has gained increasing popularity in the management of complicated colorectal polyps. However, clinical outcomes for ESD have remained highly inconsistent worldwide. This study investigated and analysed factors that significantly affect ESD outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a single-centred retrospective study on 220 colorectal polyps removed by ESD from 1st January 2016 to 31st December 2020. Data were collected and retrieved from clinical records. Variables studied included patient demographics, ESD technicalities and polyp characteristics. The primary outcome was completeness of resection based on en bloc and R0 resection rates. The secondary outcomes were recurrence, complications and hospital stay. Further analysis was performed for significant outcome determining factors.
resultsThe en bloc resection and R0 resection rates were 97.3% and 65% respectively. Intraprocedural and delayed perforation rates were 3.2% and 0.5% respectively. Intraprocedural and delayed bleeding rates were both 1.8%. Post-polypectomy syndrome rate was 2.7%. The median hospital stay was 4 days. Submucosal fibrosis was a significant determining factor for lower en bloc resection (p = 0.004), lower R0 resection (p = 0.002), intraprocedural perforation (p = 0.001), intraprocedural bleeding (p = 0.025) and post-polypectomy syndrome (p = 0.039). Hybrid snaring was associated with lower en bloc resection (p < 0.001), while longer ESD time was associated with lower R0 resection (p = 0.003) and post-polypectomy syndrome (p = 0.025). Other significant factors for post-polypectomy syndrome included young age (p = 0.021) and large polyp size (p = 0.018). Secondary analysis showed that submucosal fibrosis was significantly associated with non-granular lesions (p < 0.001) and prior biopsy (p = 0.003).
conclusionSubmucosal fibrosis, hybrid snaring, ESD time, age and polyp size were significant outcome determining factors for ESD. By identifying these factors, strategies may be formulated to improve ESD outcomes.
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.