ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Real-world outcomes of collaborative surgery for gastrointestinal tumors by endoscopists and surgeons: a single-center retrospective analysis of 131 patients.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison Between endoscopic submucosal dissection and laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery for non-ampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumors: a single-center retrospective cohort study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Gastrointestinal endoscopy and visceral surgery: current status and potentials for interdisciplinary patient care.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Collaborative surgery by both endoscopists and surgeons is considered effective for providing less invasive local resection of gastrointestinal tumors, to offset the limitations of either pure endoscopic treatments or surgical intervention. The clinical outcomes of collaborative surgery were evaluated to investigate the feasibility and safety of this approach. Methods: In this single-center retrospective observational study, we collected data from consecutive patients who underwent collaborative surgery for lesions located from the laryngopharynx to the anus. The completeness of collaboration, technical success, procedure time, postoperative hospitalization period, and occurrence of adverse events were analyzed. Results: Collaboration surgery was performed for 134 lesions (33 laryngopharyngeal, 2 esophageal, 89 gastric, 8 duodenal and 2 recto-anal) in 131 patients. Collaboration completeness was achieved in 129 lesions (96%). Conclusions: These results indicate that collaborative surgery by endoscopists and surgeons was feasible and safe, and may contribute to providing less invasive treatment than conventional surgery. Collaborative surgery is worth considering as a flexible and reliable surgical option, when cooperation may outperform either treatment alone.
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.