ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2025
Safety of sedation-free endoscopic submucosal dissection of colon lesions: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has emerged as an effective technique for the en bloc and curative removal of sizable colorectal tumors. Despite ESD's advantages over traditional surgery, its primary associated complications of perforation and hemorrhage pose significant challenges. Sedation-free ESD allows for real-time reporting of symptoms by patients, improving the identification and management of complications. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of sedation-free ESD.
methodsA retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing sedation-free ESD for colorectal lesions at a tertiary center in Taiwan from 2018 to 2023. Patient demographics, lesion characteristics, procedure time, and clinical outcomes were collected. The primary outcome was safety as assessed via intraoperative complications (e.g., perforation or hemorrhage) and overall complication rates. Additional analyses included factors associated with perforation and management strategies (i.e., endoclips or surgical intervention) using univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses.
resultsA total of 134 patients were included in the study. The mean patient age was 65.3 years, with an average lesion size of 3.6 ± 1.5 cm. ESD-associated perforation or hemorrhage occurred in 6.7% and 10.4% of cases, respectively, most of which were successfully managed with endoclips. Patients with hemorrhage-compared with those without-had significantly larger lesions (median: 4.7 cm versus 3 cm, p = 0.004). Multivariable analysis revealed no statistically significant associations between lesion characteristics and perforation. No delayed perforations were reported.
conclusionsSedation-free ESD is a safe alternative to traditional sedated ESD for colorectal lesions. Real-time symptom reporting by patients enhances management of complications. In addition, precision application of endoclips ensures optimal perforation and hemorrhage control, improving patient outcomes and safety.
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.