ReviewClinical endoscopy2023
Management of complications related to colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Review in Clinical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes of Rubber-clip-assisted Versus Conventional Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Retrospective Study.DEN open · 2027Article
- Therapeutic potential ofPharmaceutical biology · 2026Review
- Feasibility and performance evaluation of a robotic steerable endoscopic submucosal dissection knife (with video).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Elucidation of the process of delayed colonic perforation after endoscopic thermal injury in a rat model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Is surgery always necessary for multiple magnet ingestion in children?-evidence for an endoscopy-first approach.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Iatrogenic colon perforation: endoscopic management or surgery.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- In Situ Photoactivated Hydrogel Adhesive Dressings for Post Colon Polypectomies (PolypCures).bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Effect of double-layered suturing for mucosal defect closure after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection on postoperative adverse events: a propensity score-matched retrospective study in Japan.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection defect closure: promising but still evolving.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Risk Factors, Clinical Course, and Management of Delayed Perforation After Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Large-Scale Multicenter Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Endoscopic resection of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: Clinicopathologic characteristics and risk factors for treatment outcomes.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Medical disputes involving lower gastrointestinal endoscopies: cases from the Korean Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2025Article
- Unexpected Discovery at Resection Site: Plasmablastic Lymphoma After Polypectomy.ACG case reports journal · 2025Article
- Risk Factors for Perforation in Endoscopic Treatment for Early Colorectal Cancer: A Nationwide ENTER-K Study.Gut and liver · 2025Article
- Establishing a nomogram for predicting the risk factors for delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Knives Out: Does the Choice of Endoscopic Knife Influence the Outcome of Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
- International Digestive Endoscopy Network Consensus on the Management of Antithrombotic Agents in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Gut and liver · 2024Review
- Rhabdomyolysis following colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Outcome and predictive factors for perforation in orthodontic rubber band-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection of fibrotic colorectal lesions.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Approaches and considerations in the endoscopic treatment of T1 colorectal cancer.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Compared to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), colonoscopic endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) has the advantages of higher en bloc resection rates and lower recurrence rates of colorectal neoplasms. Therefore, C-ESD is considered an effective treatment method for laterally spread tumors and early colorectal cancer. However, C-ESD is technically more difficult and requires a longer procedure time than EMR. In addition to therapeutic efficacy and procedural difficulty, safety concerns should always be considered when performing C-ESD in clinical practice. Bleeding and perforation are the main adverse events associated with C-ESD and can occur during C-ESD or after the completion of the procedure. Most bleeding associated with C-ESD can be managed endoscopically, even if it occurs during or after the procedure. More recently, most perforations identified during C-ESD can also be managed endoscopically, unless the mural defect is too large to be sutured with endoscopic devices or the patient is hemodynamically unstable. Delayed perforations are quite rare, but they require surgical treatment more frequently than endoscopically identified intraprocedural perforations or radiologically identified immediate postprocedural perforations. Post-ESD coagulation syndrome is a relatively underestimated adverse event, which can mimic localized peritonitis from perforation. Here, we classify and characterize the complications associated with C-ESD and recommend management options for them.
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.