ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
New generation endoscopic closure devices for full-thickness defects: a comparative pre-clinical study (with videos).
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic full-thickness resection of upper gastrointestinal tract: a review on closure techniques.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- A novel enhanced two-tooth clip for reliable defect closure endoscopically: An ex vivo comparative and in vivo feasibility study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Endoscopic Closure Techniques for Perforations, Leaks, and Fistulae: Review Article.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Advancements in endoscopic closure: Embracing a new era of managing complications and postprocedural defects after endoscopic submucosal dissection.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
- The Taco Effect: Recognizing and Avoiding Suboptimal Closure While Using Dual-Anchor Clips and Endoscopic Suturing.ACG case reports journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic closure techniques are effective and safe in the management of transmural gastrointestinal defects. However, there is a paucity of data regarding their comparative effectiveness. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of several new-generation, endoscopic closure devices in a pre-clinical model.
methodsWe evaluated five commercially available devices: a through-the-scope clip (TTSC), an anchor-pronged TTSC, a suturing device, helical tacking system, and over-the-scope clip. We tested closure strength using an ex-vivo porcine model. Next, live animals underwent 15 mm gastric and colonic perforations followed by immediate endoscopic closure with one of the devices. We assessed technical success, 7-day survival, time to complete closure, and National Aeronautical and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) task load index.
resultsA total of 60 ex-vivo closures were conducted (12 per device). The suturing device achieved a higher closure strength than all other devices (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). Technical success was achieved in 80% of cases, and 9 of 10 animals (90%) survived to 7 days post-closure. The mean procedure time for the suturing device was longer than all other devices (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). The mean procedure time for the anchor-pronged TTSC was also faster than over-the-scope clip (P = 0.04). The total endoscopist NASA-TLX score for the suturing device and helical system were greater than all other devices (P < 0.05 for all comparisons).
conclusionEach closure device varies significantly in closure strength, closure time, and ease of use. Optimal device selection will depend on defect size, anatomic location, the viability of the surrounding tissue, and endoscopist/technician expertise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39623173What 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.