ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
A novel self-assembling peptide as new submucosal injection solution in endoscopic submucosal dissection.
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 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.
- A Review on Recent Progress and Clinical Translation of Self-Assembled Hydrogels in Diabetic Wound Repair.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Review of the role of submucosal injection materials in digestive endoscopy.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- Endoscopic resection of colitis-associated neoplasia: A scoping review.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluates the effectiveness of PuraLift, a novel self-assembling peptide-based submucosal injection solution, in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures. We compared its performance to MucoUp in a variety of organ-spanning lesions (esophagus, stomach, and colon/rectum).
methodsWe included 40 consecutive ESD lesions from our hospital, with 19 treated using PuraLift and 21 using MucoUp. Special cases (such as those with ulcerative colitis, evident fibrosis due to post-treatment scars, and circumferential esophageal cases) and the cases that used device without waterjet function were excluded. Endoscopists assessed the satisfaction of submucosal lifting through needle injection on a 5-point scale. Firmness during local injection by the assistant for the PuraLift group was compared to MucoUp (MucoUp was set as a baseline score of 3) using a 5-point scale.
resultsThe firmness during local injection was significantly lower with PuraLift compared to MucoUp across all locations: esophagus (1 (1-2) vs. 3 (3-3), p = 0.018), stomach (1.5 (1-2) vs. 3 (3-3), p < 0.001), and colon/rectum (2 (1-2) vs. 3 (3-3), p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences between PuraLift and MucoUp in terms of endoscopist satisfaction with lifting, amount of solution injected, glycerol used via jet function, or procedure time for any organ.
conclusionPuraLift, with its novel mechanism, offers comparable lifting satisfaction to MucoUp but with less firmness during injection. It presents a promising alternative as a local injection solution in ESD procedures.
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.