ArticleCase reports in gastroenterology
Delayed Perforation of Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Treated by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage.
Article in Case reports in gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We report a case of a 70-year-old male with delayed perforation in the cecum treated by endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage for a pelvic abscess. The lesion was a 50-mm laterally spreading tumor, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was performed. No perforation was detected during the operation, and en bloc resection was achieved. He had fever and abdominal pain on postoperative day (POD) 2. Computed tomography (CT) revealed the intra-abdominal free air, leading to a diagnosis of delayed perforation after ESD. Vital signs were stable, the perforation was considered minor, and endoscopic closure was attempted. The colonoscopy under fluoroscopy showed no perforation in the ulcer and no leakage of the contrast medium. He was managed conservatively with antibiotics and nothing per os. Symptoms improved; however, a follow-up CT on POD 13 revealed a 65-mm pelvic abscess, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage was successfully performed. The follow-up CT on POD 23 showed the reduction of abscess, and the drainage tubes were removed. Emergent surgical treatment is crucial in delayed perforation because it has a poor prognosis, and reports of conservative therapy for colonic ESD with delayed perforation are few. The present case was managed with antibiotics and EUS-guided drainage. Thus, EUS-guided drainage can be a treatment option for delayed perforation after colorectal ESD, if the abscess is localized.
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.