ArticleJournal of digestive diseases
A Study of a Novel Disposable Endoscopic Purse-String Suture Auxiliary Instrument for the Treatment of Full-Thickness Gastric Wall Defects.
Article in Journal of digestive diseases. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel endoscopic purse-string suture auxiliary instrument compared with traditional methods for closure of a full-thickness defect of the stomach in an ex vivo model.
methodsTwelve perforation sites (10-20 mm in diameter) were created in the ex vivo porcine stomach models. Two physicians (A and B had performed endoscopic surgery for 6 and 3 years) performed suturing using both the experimental and traditional (control) instruments. Operation time, success rate, and number of attempts for successful suture required were recorded.
resultsFor physician A, the median suturing time was 56.50 s (interquartile range [IQR] 40.50 s, 134.50 s) and 215.50 s (IQR 63.75 s, 254.75 s) in the experimental and control groups. For physician B, they were 53.00 s (IQR 38.50 s, 87.75 s) and 174.00 s (IQR 104.50 s, 279.25 s), respectively. The differences between experimental and control groups were statistically significant for both physicians A (p = 0.010) and B (p = 0.004). The median number of attempts required for successful suturing in the experimental and control groups was 1 (IQR 1, 2) and 2 (IQR 1, 3) for physician A, and 1 (IQR 1, 1) and 3 (IQR 2, 3) for physician B, which were statistically significant for both physicians (p = 0.026 and 0.006). The overall success rate was significantly higher in the experimental group (100% vs. 75.0%, p = 0.022).
conclusionThis novel purse-string suture auxiliary instrument may assist in single-channel endoscopic suturing operations, improve the suture success rate, reduce the number of operations required, and shorten the operation time.
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.