ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Comparison of Traction and Pocket Creation Methods for Facilitating Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multitraction point strategy for endoscopic submucosal dissection in managing difficult colorectal lesions.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2026Article
- Gaining Traction: Is the Traction-Assisted Method Superior to the Pocket-Creation Method for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Comment on Optimizing Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Outcomes: Focus on Iatrogenic Fibrosis and Intervention Timing.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Optimizing Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Outcomes: Focus on Iatrogenic Fibrosis and Intervention Timing.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offers high en bloc and R0 resection rates for large colorectal lesions. This study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and treatment outcomes of the traction method (TM) versus the pocket creation method (PCM) in colorectal ESD.
methodConsecutive patients undergoing colorectal ESD at a tertiary referral center from 2014 to 2024 were included. Outcomes included en bloc resection, R0 resection, curative resection, and adverse events (AE).
resultsThe study included 668 patients, 50.7% of whom were females with a mean age of 63 years (SD 12). The mean diameter of the lesions was 50.4 mm (SD 23). A total of 94.8% (n = 663) of lesions were removed via en bloc resection, achieving R0 resection rate of 89.1%, and curative resection rate at 87.9%. Multivariable analysis showed that TM was linked to fourfolds increase in en bloc resection rates (OR 4.187, P = 0.001) and significantly higher R0 resection rates (OR 39.874, P < 0.001) compared to PCM. Left-sided colon lesions also had higher en bloc rates (OR 2.747, P = 0.018). TM was associated with significantly shorter dissection time than PCM (50.6 min vs 72.0 min; P < 0.001). Muscle injury was significantly more common in PCM (P = 0.012), while no differences other AE.
conclusionTM appears to have a higher chance of complete resection, offering shorter dissection times, while both methods have similar risks of major adverse event rates. Both techniques are good options with comparable safety profiles for colorectal ESD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41044358What 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.