ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Endoscopic submucosal resection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) via balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) in small bowel subepithelial lesions: experience in treating fifteen cases.
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 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.
- Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection Device (FTRDDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThe study objective was to evaluate the primary feasibility of endoscopic submucosal resection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) via balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) to treat small bowel subepithelial lesions (SELs).
methodA retrospective case series study was performed. The first fifteen consecutive patients who underwent ESD (n = 10) and EFTR (n = 5) via BAE to remove small bowel SELs from November 2016 to December 2023 were included. The main outcome measures were the technique success rate, operative time and complication rate.
resultsThis research focused on 15 cases of jejunoileal SELs, four cases of lipomyoma, three cases of ectopic pancreas, two cases of NETs, three cases of benign fibrous tumours and three cases of angioma. The overall technique success rate was 86.7%, with 100% (10/10) and 60% (3/5) for BAE-ESD and BAE-EFTR, respectively, in removing small bowel SELs. Two cases of EFTR failed, as the BAE operation was unsuitable for tumour resection and suture repair of a perforated wound. No serious bleeding or any postoperative complications occurred. The median time of endoscopic resection via BAE for SELs was 44 min (range 22-68 min).
conclusionESD and EFTR via BAE might be alternative choices for treating small SELs in the small bowel, with the advantages of clear and accurate positioning and minimal invasiveness. However, its superiority over surgery still needs to be further investigated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39266761What 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.