ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Comparative study on different endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques for the treatment of superficial esophageal cancer and precancerous lesions.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of a snare-based hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection technique in the management of esophageal submucosal tumors.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Short- and long-term outcomes for early large esophageal carcinoma patients treated via double- and single-tunnel super minimally invasive surgery: a multicentre, retrospective cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Case Report: Endoscopic submucosal tunneling dissection using a golden knife for a giant gastric cancer lesion: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of traditional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic submucosal tunneling dissection (ESTD), and endoscopic submucosal dissection with C-shaped incision (ESD-C) in the treatment of superficial esophageal cancer and precancerous lesions, providing reference and guidance for the treatment of esophageal cancer.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of patients who underwent ESD (n = 96), ESTD (n = 103), and ESD-C (n = 98) for superficial esophageal cancer or precancerous lesions between January 2017 and December 2022. Through comparative analysis, the effectiveness and safety of the three surgical methods were evaluated, and the risk factors for postoperative esophageal stricture were explored.
resultsIn terms of total operative time and dissection time, the ESD group > ESTD group > ESD-C group; in terms of dissection speed, the ESD group < ESTD group < ESD-C group; in terms of dissection area, the ESD group < ESTD group and ESD-C group; and in terms of wound treatment time, the ESD group > ESTD group and ESD-C group. In terms of surgical outcomes, the en bloc resection rate was 100% in all three groups, with complete resection rates of 86.84%, 90.79%, and 88.16% in the ESD, ESTD, and ESD-C groups, respectively. The risk factors for postoperative esophageal stricture included dissection area, circumferential proportion of the lesion, and injury to the muscularis propria.
conclusionAmong the three surgical approaches, ESD-C demonstrated superior performance in operative time, resection speed, and procedural efficiency. Increased circumferential involvement of the lesion, larger resection area, and greater injury to the muscularis propria were associated with a heightened risk of postoperative esophageal stricture.
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.