Esophageal mucosal auto-transplantation versus acellular dermal matrix transplantation for preventing esophageal stenosis after endoscopic resection in patients with superficial esophageal mucosal lesions.

Ting-Ting Mou, Yue Xu, Ling-Zhu Qian, Xin-Li Mao, Hai-Hong Zheng, Yu Zhang

Abstract readComparative Study

In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ting-Ting MouDepartment of Gastroenterology, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China.

Yue XuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China.

Ling-Zhu QianDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou Medical University, 150 Ximen Street, Linhai, Zhejiang, China.

Xin-Li MaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China.

Hai-Hong ZhengDepartment of Pathology, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Wenzhou Medical University, 150 Ximen Street, Linhai, Zhejiang, China.

Yu ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Taizhou Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China. zhangyu783@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-8972-2411

Funding

Medical Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Province 2023KY1312Science and Technology Program of Zhejiang Province 2025C02139

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEsophageal stricture is the principal complication associated with endoscopic resection (ER) in patients with superficial esophageal cancer (SEC), and medical intervention may be required to prevent esophageal stricture after ER. The aim of this study was to compare acellular dermal matrix (ADM) transplantation and esophageal mucosal autograft (EMA) transplantation in terms of efficacy in preventing esophageal stricture after ER for SEC.

methodsBetween May 2017 and November 2022, 48 patients with SEC who underwent EMA or ADM after ER were enrolled in this study. The primary outcomes measured included esophageal stricture, refractory esophageal stricture, and the number of endoscopic dilations after esophageal stricture.

resultsA total of 48 patients with SEC were enrolled in this study, 17 of whom underwent EMA after ER (EMA group) and 31 of whom underwent ADM after ER (ADM group). The median of total procedure duration and the median of transplantation duration in the ADM group was significantly shorter than that in the EMA group (Z = - 2.408, P = 0.016; Z = - 2.710, P = 0.006). During the follow-up, 4 patients developed refractory esophageal stricture in the EMA group and 1 developed refractory esophageal stricture in the ADM group. The rate of refractory esophageal stricture was lower in ADM group than in EMA group (3.2% vs. 23.5%, P = 0.047). In patients with > 3/4 circumferential range ER, the rate of refractory esophageal stricture was also lower in ADM group than in EMA group (4.0% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.067). Among the patients who developed esophageal stricture, the median number of endoscopic dilations in the ADM group was less than that in the EMA group (Z = 27.500; P = 0.040).

conclusionsCompared with EMA, ADM provided several advantages, as it reduced the number of endoscopic dilations for patients with esophageal strictures and shortened the procedure duration for patients who underwent esophageal ESD.

Indexed as

Acellular DermisEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionEsophageal MucosaEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophageal StenosisPostoperative ComplicationsAgedEsophagoscopyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTransplantation, AutologousTreatment OutcomeAcellular dermal matrixEndoscopic resectionEsophageal cancerEsophageal mucosal autograftEsophageal stricture

Identifiers

PMID40325245

DOI10.1007/s00464-025-11718-0

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.