Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2023
Clinical usefulness of the hold-and-drag closure using the SB clip for large mucosal defects after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dual-function robotic gripper for traction and closure in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: an in vivo porcine model study (with video).Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of rectal tumors.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic clip closure of mucosal defects after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) reduces the risk of postoperative adverse events, but achieving complete closure for large mucosal defects can be difficult. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the hold-and-drag closure using an SB clip compared with that of the conventional closure for mucosal defects after colorectal ESD.
methodsEighty-four consecutive colorectal lesions resected by ESD at the Hiroshima Asa Citizens Hospital were registered and randomly allocated to two groups (Group A: SB clip, Group B: EZ clip), and then endoscopic closures were performed. We crossed-over to the SB clip in situations where the initial closure using an EZ clip was unsuccessful in achieving complete closure. Outcomes were compared and analyzed.
resultsForty-two lesions were randomly assigned to groups A and B. The complete closure rate was significantly higher in group A, especially in resected specimens with a diameter of 30 mm or more. Twelve lesions that failed complete closure in group B were changed to SB clips, and 95% of the whole of group B were successfully closed. There were no significant differences in procedural time, number of clips, and cost of clips between groups A and B.
conclusionCompared with the conventional closure, the hold-and-drag closure using an SB clip is a more suitable method for complete closure, especially for large mucosal defects of 30 mm or more. Furthermore, this is a simpler and more economical compared to a zipper closure using EZ clips.
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.