ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2024
Efficacy of Two Kinds of Scissor-Type Knives for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improvement in the Visibility of Submucosal Layers and Vessels with Amber-Red Color Imaging in Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Observational
- Comparative efficacy and safety of injection mucosa knife versus conventional techniques in endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal laterally spreading tumors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The effects of different traction devices on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection outcomes.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Submucosal fibrosis in large colorectal serrated lesions in cases receiving endoscopic submucosal dissection.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionScissor-type knives are spreading as safe devises in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We evaluated the efficacy of two kinds of scissor-type knives (Clutch Cutter: CC, Fujifilm Co. and SB Knife Jr2: SB, SB-KAWASUMI Laboratories. Inc.) in colorectal ESD.
methodsThis single-center retrospective study analyzed 178 ESD cases treated with CC from January 2020 to August 2021 and 91 cases with SB from September 2021 to December 2023. The two groups were compared through propensity score matching. Therapeutic results, such as ESD procedure time, en bloc resection rate, perioperative bleeding frequency, and complications, were analyzed in each group. Risk factors for long ESD procedure time (≥ 90 min) were also examined.
resultsAfter matching, 87 cases in each group were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the ESD procedure time (min, median [interquartile range]) between the CC and SB groups (54.0 [36.0-72.0] vs. 53.0 [39.0-72.0], p = 0.99). Additionally, there were no differences in the en bloc resection (100% vs. 100%, p = 1.00), perioperative perforation (1.1% vs. 1.1%, p = 1.00), or delayed bleeding (1.1% vs. 0.0%, p = 1.00). There was a significant difference in perioperative bleeding frequency (mean ± standard deviation: 1.8 ± 2.6 vs. 3.0 ± 3.5, p < 0.01). The significant risk factors (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) for long ESD procedure time in patients treated with CC or SB were antiplatelet (7.51 [1.82-31.00]), large lesion size (1.08 [1.05-1.12]), severe fibrosis (24.30 [7.60-77.90]), and perioperative bleeding frequency (1.34 [1.14-1.56]).
conclusionsCC and SB in colorectal ESD enabled high en bloc resection and low complication rates. CC showed significantly less perioperative bleeding than SB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38967903What 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.