Trial reportTechniques in coloproctology2025
Hemoclip-suture-rubber band traction improves efficiency of colonic ESD: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Techniques in coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Traction-assisted versus conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
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
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel, simple internal traction method using a hemoclip, suture, and rubber band during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colonic lesions.
methodsA total of 96 patients undergoing ESD at Jiangyin Hospital Affiliated with Nantong University between January 2021 and December 2024 were randomized into two groups: Group A (n = 48) underwent conventional ESD, while Group B (n = 48) underwent ESD with hemoclip-suture-rubber band traction. The study included patients with early stage colon cancer, precancerous lesions (e.g., adenomas with high-grade dysplasia), and neuroendocrine tumors. Outcome measures included total procedure time, mucosal dissection time, number of submucosal injections, en bloc resection rate, adverse events, and the size of lesion area.
resultsThe hemoclip-suture-rubber band traction group (Group B) demonstrated significantly shorter total procedure time (72.63 ± 34.14 min versus 85.13 ± 38.18 min, P < 0.05) and mucosal dissection time (53.56 ± 29.03 min versus 71.63 ± 39.18 min, P < 0.001) compared with the conventional ESD group (Group A). Group B also required significantly fewer submucosal injections (1.63 ± 1.23 versus 4.75 ± 1.62, P < 0.001). Lesions in Group B were significantly larger (7.650 [2.857, 10.386] cm
conclusionsThe hemoclip-suture-rubber band traction technique facilitates colonic ESD by reducing procedure time and the need for submucosal injections, especially in larger lesions.While overall safety is comparable to conventional ESD, the potential for muscularis propria injury warrants further study in larger, multicenter trials.This simple and effective method holds promise for improving the efficiency and potentially the safety of colonic ESD.
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.