ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2024
Endoscopic resection for non-ampullary duodenal subepithelial lesions: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Controversies in NEN: An ENETS position statement on the endoscopic management of localised gastric, duodenal and rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms.Journal of neuroendocrinology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and pre-cutting endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) in treating non-ampullary duodenal subepithelial lesions (NADSELs) and to evaluate the clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) before endoscopic resection (ER).
methodsIn this retrospective single-centre cohort study, we compared the clinical outcomes of patients with NADSELs who underwent ESD or pEMR between January 2014 and June 2023. The accuracies of EUS in determining the pathological type and origin of the lesions were evaluated using postoperative histopathology as the gold standard.
resultsOverall, 56 patients with NADSELs underwent ER in this study, including 16 and 40 treated with pEMR and ESD, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of en bloc resection rate, complete (R0) resection rate, perioperative complication rate, and postoperative hospital length of stay (P > 0.05). However, the pEMR group had significantly shorter median operational (13.0 min vs. 30.5 min, P < 0.001) and mean fasting (1.9 days vs. 2.8 days, P = 0.006) time and lower median hospital costs (¥12,388 vs. ¥19,579, P = 0.002). The accuracies of EUS in determining the pathological type and origin of the lesions were 76.8% and 94.6%, respectively, compared with histopathological evaluation.
conclusionsEUS can accurately predict the origin of NADSELs. Suitable lesions determined to originate from the submucosa or more superficial layers using EUS can be treated using pEMR as it shortens the operational and recovery time, reduces hospitalisation costs, and achieves an R0 resection rate similar to ESD.
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.