ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Self-help inflatable balloon versus autologous skin-grafting surgery for preventing esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic submucosal dissection: a propensity score matching analysis.
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 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Image-Based Prediction of Esophageal Stenosis after ESD Using Mucosal Defect Metrics.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Global trends and research hotspots in esophageal strictures: A bibliometric study.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Stricture prevention after circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection of the esophagus: ProactiveWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe self-help inflatable balloon (SHIB) and autologous skin-grafting surgery (ASGS) were used to prevent stricture after esophageal complete circular endoscopic submucosal dissection (cESD) with promising clinical results. We aim to evaluate which method is more suitable for patients who underwent esophageal cESD.
methodsFrom October 2017 to July 2021, patients whose mucosal defect length were between 30 and 100 mm after esophageal cESD were retrospectively reviewed from two prospective studies. They were enrolled once SHIB or ASGS was used as preventive methods to prevent stricture. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Comparisons were made between the two groups, including operation time, the longitudinal length of ulceration, fasting time, hospitalization days, and the incidence of stricture.
resultsA total of 41 patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. The numbers of patients in SHIB group and ASGS group were 25 and 16, respectively. Fifteen patients in each group were selected after performing PSM. The basic baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The stricture rates were 20% (3/15) in SHIB group and 40% (6/15) in ASGS group, while the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.427). The SHIB group showed significantly shorter operation time, shorter hospitalization days, lower cost, and longer removing balloon/stent time compared with ASGS group (p < 0.001). Comparison of relevant stricture factors between the stricture group and non-stricture group revealed that longer longitudinal length of ulceration (> 60 mm) accounted for a higher proportion in stricture groups (p = 0.035).
conclusionBoth the SHIB and ASGS had high efficacy and safety in preventing strictures in patients with mucosal defects no longer than 100 mm in length after esophageal cESD. The longitudinal length of ulceration > 60 mm was the independent factor for predicting stricture.
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.