ReviewFrontiers in oncology2022
Robotic-assisted vs non-robotic traction techniques in endoscopic submucosal dissection for malignant gastrointestinal lesions.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bibliometric mapping of robot-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection: research trends, collaboration networks, and emerging themes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robot-assisted versus conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Efficacy and prognosis analysis of pulley traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection with dental floss for early gastric cancer and precancerous lesions.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Editorial: Recent updates in advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic submucosal dissection is an effective approach with higher en bloc resection and complete resection rate for superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions. However, endoscopic submucosal dissection is technically challenging and associated with several adverse events, such as bleeding or perforations. The single channel flexible endoscope's intrinsic limitations in preserving visualization of the submucosal dissection plane as compared to laparoscopic surgery are the most common cause of complications during the endoscopic submucosal dissection technique. As a result, traction techniques were created as the endoscope's second helping hand in order to improve the effectiveness of the endoscopic submucosal dissection method. Trainees can master endoscopic submucosal dissection methods more quickly by using traction techniques. The anatomical location of the lesion plays a major role in determining which traction technique should be employed. An appealing way of traction is robot-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection, and various types of endoscopic robots that allow bimanual operation are currently being developed. The advent of robot-assisted endoscopic technology ushers in a new era of endoscopic submucosal dissection, and with it come its own unique challenges that remain to be elucidated. Future research and development efforts are needed to focus on pathways and curriculums for trainees to master the currently available traction techniques and provide avenues for the development of newer traction modalities. In this article, we discuss evolution, characteristics, technological improvements and clinical comparisons of both robotic and non-robotic endoscopic traction techniques used in endoscopic submucosal dissection.
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.