ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Optimizing self-expandable metallic stent placement for malignant ileocecal obstruction: Role of pre-stenting contrast enema and device selection.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement is an established intervention for malignant colorectal obstruction, but the ileocecal region presents unique anatomical challenges. This study aimed to evaluate the technical success of SEMS placement for malignant ileocecal obstruction and to examine the impact of pre-stenting preparation and device selection. Patients and methods: We retrospectively analyzed 72 patients with right-sided malignant colonic obstruction (13 ileocecal, 59 other segments) treated between January 2011 and March 2025. The primary outcome was the technical success rate; procedure efficiency was the secondary outcome. Clinical success was also evaluated in the ileocecal group according to treatment intent. All ileocecal cases underwent contrast liquid enema-assisted navigation (CLEAN) to assist device selection. Subgroup analyses examined scope diameter, hood shape, operator experience, and catheter tip mobility. Results: Technical success was significantly lower in the ileocecal group (76.9% vs. 98.3%, Conclusions: SEMS placement in the ileocecal region is technically more challenging than in other right-sided segments. Procedure optimization - potentially aided by CLEAN, tapered hoods, and experienced operators-may help overcome anatomical difficulties while maintaining 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.