ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Ex vivo evaluation of a novel through-the-scope traction device for endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technique used for resection of large neoplastic lesions, providing great oncological outcomes. However, ESD is technically challenging with a long learning curve, high complication rates, and extended procedure times. To address these limitations, various traction-assisted methods have been developed. This study evaluated a novel through-the-scope traction device (TRACMOTION, Fujifilm, Japan), which offers consistent and adjustable traction, in a pilot multicenter randomized ex vivo trial. Patients and methods: The study included six endoscopists with limited ESD experience performing ESD on ex vivo porcine stomach models. Participants were randomized into two groups: those using TRACMOTION-assisted ESD (TM-ESD) and those performing conventional ESD (C-ESD). Each trainee completed six procedures, split equally between both groups. The primary outcome was resection speed, whereas secondary outcomes included en bloc, R0 resection rates, perforation rates, and rates of speedy procedures (>20 mm²/min). Results: The TM-ESD group achieved a higher median resection speed of 20.75 mm²/min (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.56-29.25) in comparison to 15.10 mm²/min (95% CI 12.8-16.6) in the C-ESD group ( Conclusions: TRACMOTION significantly improves the efficiency of ESD, reducing procedure time and complication rates. This traction device could potentially facilitate broader adoption of ESD in clinical practice. However, further research in human trials is necessary to validate these findings.
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.