ArticleDEN open2024
Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for large pedunculated colorectal carcinoma: A retrospective multicenter study.
Article in DEN open, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal pedunculated polyps.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Endoscopic approaches for the management of giant colonic polyps.Clinical endoscopy · 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
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Complete en-bloc resection of pedunculated colorectal carcinoma is necessary for a proper pathological diagnosis. However, due to poor visibility, large pedunculated colorectal carcinomas are difficult to snare and resect en-bloc using endoscopic resection or polypectomy. Additionally, the bleeding risk of large pedunculated colorectal carcinomas is relatively high. We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for large pedunculated colorectal carcinomas. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study to assess 36 consecutive patients with 36 large pedunculated colorectal carcinomas who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection and evaluated the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection. Furthermore, patients were divided into two groups according to the procedure time, and the factors related to the procedure time were assessed. Results: The mean tumor size was 34.1 ± 9.9 mm. The en-bloc, complete en-bloc, and curative resection rates were 97% (35/36), 97% (35/36), and 81% (29/36), respectively. The rate of severe bleeding during the procedure was 11% (4/36); however, it could be controlled endoscopically in all patients. The rate of intraoperative perforation and delayed bleeding was 0% (0/36). Delayed perforations occurred in one patient that required surgery. A long procedure time was correlated with the location of the flexure and poor endoscope operability. No recurrence was observed in any patient. None of the patients died of colorectal carcinoma. Conclusions: Our results showed the feasibility and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for large pedunculated colorectal carcinomas.
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.