ArticleVeterinary surgery : VS2025
Ex vivo comparison of full-thickness biopsy techniques in the equine small intestine.
Article in Veterinary surgery : VS, 2025. 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.
- Ex vivo comparison of full-thickness biopsy techniques in the equine small intestine.Veterinary surgery : VS · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the practicability and tissue sample quality between different intestinal biopsy techniques. STUDY
designExperimental, randomized ex vivo study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Small intestine of nine horses.
methodsFour different biopsy techniques were evaluated in the aboral jejunum and the ileum within 1 h after euthanasia. One segment was used as control (C), and the applied techniques included an 8 mm biopsy punch (BP), transverse wedge resection (TW), longitudinal wedge resection with transverse closure (LW) and a longitudinal sample using Eppendorfer biopsy forceps (EF). Defects were closed using a single-layer continuous Lembert pattern. Duration of the procedure, intestinal diameter, contamination, and bursting pressure were determined. The quality of the obtained tissue samples for histological assessment was evaluated using a semiquantitative score. The jejunal and ileal samples were analyzed separately.
resultsAll biopsy procedures including defect closure were completed within 5 min, with shorter closure times for BP (p = .03). Minimal contamination could be noted in 1/8 TW and 2/8 LW cases, without significant differences between the groups. Longitudinal closure techniques (BP, EF) showed more constriction than transverse closures (TW, LW) (p < .05). Bursting pressure was >75 mmHg in all cases. Technique BP showed significantly lower biopsy quality scores (p = .009).
conclusionThe tested biopsy techniques could all be applied effectively within a reasonable time frame, yet the biopsy punch was associated with significant artifacts and risk of missing mucosa. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings provide insights into the possible advantages and limitations of the different techniques and alert the surgeon to potential issues with the quality of the tissue sample.
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.