ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Closure of gastrointestinal perforations using an endoloop system and a single-channel endoscope: description of a simple, reproducible, and standardized method.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic closure of a perforated peptic ulcer using a detachable snare loop in an elderly patient at high risk for surgery.Endoscopy · 2026Article
- Traction clip closure of small bowel perforation during single-balloon enteroscopy in a patient with surgical altered anatomy.Endoscopy · 2025Article
- Stapfer I and II duodenal perforations after endoscopic procedures: how surgical delay impacts outcomes.Surgical 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral endoscopic treatments for iatrogenic perforations are currently available, with some limitations in terms of size, location, complexity, or cost. Our aims were to introduce a novel technique for closure, using an endoloop and clips, to assess its rate of technical success and post-resection complications.
methodsFor closure of large perforations (diameter ≥ 10 mm), two similar techniques were implemented, using a single-channel endoscope. An endoloop was deployed through the operating channel or towed by an endoclip alongside the endoscope. Several clips were utilized to fix it on the muscular layer of defect's margins. The defect was closed, by fastening the loop either directly or after being reattached to the mobile hook.
resultsThis analysis included eleven patients (72% women, median age 68 years). Eight colorectal, one appendiceal, and two gastric lesions were resected, with a median perforation size of 15 mm. As confirmed by computed tomography, closure of wall defects was achieved successfully in all cases, using a median of 6 clips. Pneumoperitoneum was evacuated in 4 cases. The median hospitalization duration was 4 days, prophylactic antibiotics being prescribed for a median of 7 days. One patient had a small abdominal collection, without requiring drainage, while another presented post-resection bleeding from the mucosal defect.
conclusionThe novel techniques, utilizing a single-channel endoscope, clips, and an endoloop, ensuring an edge-to-edge suture of muscular layer, proved to be safe, reproducible, and easy to implement. They exhibit an excellent technical success rate and a minimal incidence of non-severe complications.
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.