ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2023
Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection vs conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colorectal neoplasms: a single-centre retrospective study.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridge technique self-traction improves outcomes over conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for semicircumferential gastric cardia neoplasms in a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Efficacy and safety of different traction numbers in endoscopic submucosal dissection: a retrospective comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Endoscopic approach to large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Case Report: Endoscopic submucosal tunneling dissection using a golden knife for a giant gastric cancer lesion: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Planned Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as Alternative for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Superficial Colorectal Neoplasms at "Challenging Sites" Using a Double-Balloon Endoluminal Interventional Platform: A Single-Center Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still not widely used due to its technical difficulty and the risk of complications. Several techniques, such as traction techniques, pocket techniques and others, have been proposed to facilitate it. One modified pocket technique especially suitable for large lesions is endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ESTD and compare ESTD to the conventional ESD (CESD) for treating large colorectal lesions.
methodsThe charts of consecutive patients referred to the Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova (Reggio Emilia, Italy) for colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 for colorectal neoplasms > 40 mm were retrospectively analysed. The primary outcome of the study was the en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were complete and curative resection rates, procedure speed, the adverse events rate and the recurrence rate.
resultsThere were 59 patients (M:F ratio 29:30, median age 70 years [range 50-93 years]). Of 59 colorectal lesions > 40 mm, 25 were removed by ESTD and 34 by CESD. The en bloc resection rate was 100% in both groups and the complete resection rate was similar (ESTD 92% vs CESD 97.1%, p = 0.569), while the curative resection rate was higher in the CESD group, but not significantly (94.1% vs 76%, p = 0.061). Procedure speed was significantly faster with ESTD (22 vs 17 mm
conclusionESTD achieves a very high en bloc resection rate and is faster than CESD.
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.