ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Defect closure after endoscopic submucosal dissection decreased the adverse events in patients with large rectal neoplasms: a propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe effectiveness of defect closure in preventing postoperative complications in rectal lesions exceeding 30 mm in size following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains uncertain; this study aimed to assess the effectiveness of defect closure in reducing postoperative complications after ESD in patients with large rectal neoplasms.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted on consecutive patients with large rectal neoplasms who underwent ESD at our center from January 2013 to December 2024. Patients were divided into two groups: the closure group and the non-closure group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize selection bias. The study compared adverse events, postoperative fever, and postoperative hospital stay between the two matched groups.
resultsA total of 215 patients were enrolled in the study and included in the analysis. The baseline characteristics of the 83 matched patient pairs were comparable after PSM. The incidence of adverse events was significantly lower in the closure group than in the non-closure group (1.2% vs. 9.6%, P = 0.040). While no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of postoperative fever and prolonged postoperative hospital stay, the rates were lower in the closure group compared to the non-closure group (9.6% vs. 10.8%, P = 0.798; 22.9% vs. 33.7%, P = 0.121, respectively). Moreover, defect closure was independently associated with a reduced risk of delayed bleeding (OR, 0.181; 95% CI, 0.035-0.932; P = 0.041).
conclusionDefect closure after ESD decreased the adverse events in patients with large rectal neoplasms. Moreover, defect closure was independently associated with a reduced risk of delayed bleeding. Future prospective studies with larger samples are needed to provide more definitive guidance for clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40251311What 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.